A modified version of words from another OUR member:
--------------
If all of us just sat back and left the likes of <Insert Handle> to preach away unimpeded it would certainly run smoother for him/her, but this forum would become pretty stagnant, mind-numbingly boring and pretty pointless. Furthermore, you and the other do-gooders would have very little to pick at, so there... nah-nah-na-nah-nah!
--------------
Remember 'relativity'? The thoughts above can be considered a view from one stance. I think the current state is already the result listed above. It isn't the result of repeated blathering of obviously poor experimental results. Quite the contrary.
It is obvious that the educational, informative, compelling or otherwise enjoyable discussions are a bit thin because there aren't enough honey pots to draw the little buzzing pests away.
So.........., I submit another honey pot >:-)
Oh you shouldn't have.....
SIGH...........
Alas you have quoted the words of that temptress from Cyberspace,She has smitten me with her Taunts in the past
a most inexplicable attraction !
I am so glad you started this thread ...... When I saw AC crooning sweet nothings her way it caused me to reflect...
However the Medication helps me get thru those weak moments now...
And then I remembered I had something for Valentines day ,and also to ask her for another 8x10 glossy
the last one is almost all gone [those darts just make a real mess of things].
Happy belated Valentines Day Farrah
I actually have missed you.............
Chet
PS
BEP
Tell "Larry" I'm sorry for Dissin his "Guarenteed thread"!
I'm not saying FD does all the buzzing. Her words were just so applicable to both views with a little modification 8)
Sometimes I think Larry is the most intelligent among us. Perhaps, he is just doing us a favor by keeping us busy C.C
The stun gun is Telsa'd pistol shrimp.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013.02.21, 10:54:16
A modified version of words from another OUR member:
--------------
If all of us just sat back and left the likes of <Insert Handle> to preach away unimpeded it would certainly run smoother for him/her, but this forum would become pretty stagnant, mind-numbingly boring and pretty pointless. Furthermore, you and the other do-gooders would have very little to pick at, so there... nah-nah-na-nah-nah!
--------------
Remember 'relativity'?
...
Spreading thoughts is not enough, even the idiots have thoughts. We have to select the rare ones that are relevant, and this is a hard work that requires efforts. Einstein worked, collaborated with mathematicians, he had no prejudice like "I know the free energy is there, I know this and I can see this" and so, he challenged its own thoughts and could formalize intelligibly his theory that is refutable because scientifical.
When such a document is then submitted to others, it can be discussed positively, positively meaning "operationnally", what doesn't prevent critics and objections. It's the same thing when you propose experiments: they must be well defined, with the schematics, the measurement protocol and the data otherwise they are indisputable.
Unfortunately here, too many "unthinking thoughts" or "vague experimental setups" are passed back and forth without intellectual requirement, and consequently "the educational, informative, compelling or otherwise enjoyable discussions" are impossible in this frame.
EX
Pipe dreams often start with a puff on the peace pipe.
At times you seem like a pipe dream,On one level you make complete sense ,DO IT RIGHT OR DON"T DO IT AT ALL
However on another level you make No sense ["WHY DO ALL THESE IDIOTS WANT TO GIVE IT AWAY"]
Are you a business man asking others to "do it right" so you can start a business?
Can you give me the other option you must have somewhere but not shared?
?
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2013.02.21, 13:39:42
Oh you shouldn't have.....
SIGH...........
Alas you have quoted the words of that temptress from Cyberspace,She has smitten me with her Taunts in the past
a most inexplicable attraction !
I am so glad you started this thread ...... When I saw AC crooning sweet nothings her way it caused me to reflect...
However the Medication helps me get thru those weak moments now...
And then I remembered I had something for Valentines day ,and also to ask her for another 8x10 glossy
the last one is almost all gone [those darts just make a real mess of things].
Happy belated Valentines Day Farrah
I actually have missed you.............
Chet
PS
BEP
Tell "Larry" I'm sorry for Dissin his "Guarenteed thread"!
Crooning sweet nothings...that phrase reminds me of something, but I can't put my finger on it. Might have been from a book I read.
Confirmation of Thane C. Heins' Effect by Naudin--more honey
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHarADVzac
@ramset
After decades of claims of free energy machines and not one being successfully duplicated, such claimers must be treated for what they are: liars.
If they affirm they have OU without at least a third party duplication or without giving all needed informations for a third party duplication, I consider that they are harmful charlatans. It doesn't a matter that they deceive the others consciously or by self-complacency.
These guys and their followers hate to be contradicted, they hate the free speech, they treat their contradictors with contempt, they don't answer the objections, they would like monopolize Internet to spread their nonsenses without opposition. When they are challenged and have the power to oust their contradictors, for instance by banning them from a forum, they do it. So they must be fought without pity, they are only pretentious and useless prophets, version third millennium, exploiting the human credulity for money or for their self-satisfaction, this one of an idiot wanting to feel a great inventor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHarADVzac
"when the BiTT v1.5 gives 2.8 Watt at the outputs, there is no additional power consummed at the primary input": always the same mistake. The load is receiving the power that otherwise is wasted in joule or iron losses.
"the BiTT primary is isolated from the secondary on-load induced flux": that's false. Connect a signal to the secondary, you will see a signal at the primary.
The general mistake consists in reasoning with ideal components, i.e. to oversimplify the equivalent schematic, while the effect is only due to the fact that the components are not ideal! C.C
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.23, 11:57:04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CHarADVzac
"when the BiTT v1.5 gives 2.8 Watt at the outputs, there is no additional power consummed at the primary input": always the same mistake. The load is receiving the power that otherwise is wasted in joule or iron losses.
"the BiTT primary is isolated from the secondary on-load induced flux": that's false. Connect a signal to the secondary, you will see a signal at the primary.
The general mistake consists in reasoning with ideal components, i.e. to oversimplify the equivalent schematic, while the effect is only due to the fact that the components are not ideal! C.C
So we could look at this like this.
The core is burning off energy,and by adding a load to the secondary-we are simply useing some of that energy that the core is burning off-thus haveing no effect on the input to the primary coil.
I have often seen these situations in the so called lenzless generator's,where they show an increase in RPM with a decrease in amp draw to the prime mover when a load is applied to the generator coil.
What they fail to understand is that if they removed the generator coil altogether,they would see a higher RPM and a larger drop in current draw to the prime mover-due to the fact that the magnetic drag from the iron core in the generator coil has been removed.
I agree, tinman. Same principle with the increasing speed.
They compare the power of two different setups, one with a load, the other without!
Only the ratio power Out/power In of the same and one setup is significant.
EX
My comment was 100% in agreement with your ideology regarding strait forward test protocol etc etc.....
the other comment was really a question more directed at this attitude -> ["WHY DO ALL THESE IDIOTS WANT TO GIVE IT AWAY"]
?
"""Are you a business man asking others to "do it right" so you can start a business?
Can you give me the other option you must have somewhere but not shared?""""
?
Thx
Chet
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.23, 11:18:23
After decades of claims of free energy machines and
not one being successfully duplicated, such claimers
must be treated for what they are: liars.
They are not (in many cases) lying or attempting to
deceive because the excess energy manifestation
(or free energy) is very real; they really do not know
how or why it manifests. That the machines cannot
be duplicated or replicated (the excess energy aspect)
is very true. But once one understands where the
excess energy comes from this makes perfect sense.
The energy is not coming from the machine.
Quote from: exnihiloest
If they affirm they have OU without at least a third
party duplication or without giving all needed
informations for a third party duplication, I consider
that they are harmful charlatans. It doesn't a matter
that they deceive the others consciously or by self-
complacency.
In many cases the excess energy has been verified
with the original device by qualified observers. Third
party duplication has not been successful within the
public domain. Not all are charlatans; some report
honestly what has been observed but are at a loss to
offer any meaningful explanations. It is mysterious
and baffling.
Quote from: exnihiloest
These guys and their followers hate to be contradicted,
they hate the free speech, they treat their contradictors
with contempt, they don't answer the objections, they
would like monopolize Internet to spread their nonsenses
without opposition. When they are challenged and have
the power to oust their contradictors, for instance by
banning them from a forum, they do it. So they must be
fought without pity, they are only pretentious and useless
prophets, version third millennium, exploiting the human
credulity for money or for their self-satisfaction, this one of
an idiot wanting to feel a great inventor.
That is true. A cult following has come into existence around
some of the charlatans who are exploiting human curiosity
and gullible "newbies." They do tend to be dogmatic, protectively
defensive of their "guru" and do take steps to minimize or silence
those who would shed light on their error.
No matter. In the end Truth will win out. The mystery of Free Energy
will be revealed to the shock and dismay of the great many.
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.02.23, 21:28:24
That is true. A cult following has come into existence around
some of the charlatans who are exploiting human curiosity
and gullible "newbies." They do tend to be dogmatic, protectively
defensive of their "guru" and do take steps to minimize or silence
those who would shed light on their error.
I know first hand how this work's,and as i found out-DONT show them there errors
All i will say is that the polotic's invloved there were like narzzie germany-follow me or be exiled from the thread.
Quote from: Dumped on 2013.02.23, 21:28:24
...
they really do not know how or why it manifests.
...
Nothing manifests.
Translation:
"they really do not know nor understand the ordinary phenomena that they take for magic OU events"
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.02.24, 00:58:06
Ex, you know as well as most of the rest of us i am sure, that some OU devices have even been patented,
You know as well as most of the rest of us i am sure, that patented devices are not verified by the patent office.
In the patents, we can even find an intergalactic flying saucer.
Quote
which puts pay to the "if they build it, we will kill them" in some way.
???!
Quote
We also know, on public record, of energy inventions that are deemed "dangerous to national security".
In any reasonable mind there can be no doubt that OU devices have been built, and that OU itself is a misgnomer.
Reactive power is an invention of the bankers' mathematicians ;+}
Profession of faith.
OU devices have not been built.
Reactive power is not a usable power.
Or must I suppose that you make freely your own electricity at home?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.24, 14:03:54
Profession of faith.
OU devices have not been built.
Reactive power is not a usable power.
Or must I suppose that you make freely your own electricity at home?
I make freely my own power at home,avalible 24 hours a day,365 days a year-come rain ,hail or shine.
It's not rocket science you know.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.24, 14:27:50
I make freely my own power at home,avalible 24 hours a day,365 days a year-come rain ,hail or shine.
It's not rocket science you know.
Expound please! Before Zardoz deems you not worthy of existence...
Otherwise,
Hold thy tongue knave least ye looseth it promptly. We will have no talk of that here in fiefdom. Such speak as this has no place amongst the wizards of eternal combustion.
May the vectors of heterodyned eclipses keep you safe from the spark of such wisdom.
Now run along and rub two sticks together.
Quote from: giantkiller on 2013.02.24, 22:41:03
Expound please! Before Zardoz deems you not worthy of existence...
Otherwise,
Hold thy tongue knave least ye looseth it promptly. We will have no talk of that here in fiefdom. Such speak as this has no place amongst the wizards of eternal combustion.
May the vectors of heterodyned eclipses keep you safe from the spark of such wisdom.
Now run along and rub two sticks together.
Lol: what coffe are you drinking gk?
Please see the first post in-what do you consider to be OU.
True in every sence of of my reply to-Or must I suppose that you make freely your own electricity at home?
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.24, 14:27:50
I make freely my own power at home,avalible 24 hours a day,365 days a year-come rain ,hail or shine.
It's not rocket science you know.
Not overunity either, otherwise you wouldn't be here, I presume.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.25, 12:09:46
Not overunity either, otherwise you wouldn't be here, I presume.
No -definitely not OU,as the source is know,
But it is a free energy system-so you can suppose that i make freely my own electricity at home.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.25, 22:41:57
No -definitely not OU,as the source is know,
But it is a free energy system-so you can suppose that i make freely my own electricity at home.
I said that if you had overunity, you would have free electricity at home. Would I have had to add "free electricity from overunity"? Was the context not clear? I can't suppose it.
In any case your reply doesn't invalidate the fact that your affirmation "no doubt that OU devices have been built" is still a profession of faith and only a profession of faith, due to a total lack of proofs.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.26, 09:28:21
In any case your reply doesn't invalidate the fact that your affirmation "no doubt that OU devices have been built" .
Now your starting to get confused exnihiloest-i dint say the above as you quoted.
That would have been DeepCut.
But i do agree with DeepCut's statement-i to have absolutly no doubt that OU devices !! as we have deem'd to be an OU device on the thread(what do you consider to be OU) !! have been built.
But most of the time,most of the people wont be in the right place to see it first hand.
Blimey, we're going around in circles a little now aren't we?
If people want to consider such things a solar panels or boiling a saucepan of water over a fire as OU, then I guess that's their prerogative... and if they themselves are not the instigator, it's more than likely to be those with exactly this mind set that attempt to give credence to so many ridiculous OU claims in the first place (mentioning no names... cough, a'hem... Ramset).
I certainly don't think that there are multitudes of people out there that have created OU devices but are too illiterate or uneducated to express their findings correctly or indeed replicate the device. And I mean, really, how absurd does that sound: uneducated in the ways or not clever enough to provide clear details or proof, but hey, they say it's OU so it must be, Yaay! C.C
When it comes down to it, there's simply no substitute for stubborn ignorance... stupid people are often too stupid to know just how stupid they really are... c'mon, we all remember Infamously STupid, IST! And worse still, remember how many gullible people took him seriously! :o
All this brings to mind a famous quote: 'Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you down to his level and then beat you with experience.'
And there are just as many (if not more) charlatans and outright fraudsters as there are innocent and harmless ignoramuses - and most people claiming something incredible around here usually fall nicely into one of those categories.
Furthermore, and contrary to what some individuals seem to think (or naively expect C.C ), no one works for nothing - there is a cost to living. I don't blame anyone from wanting to make some money from their own discovery or invention, they no doubt deserve some reward - good luck to them! However, I detest the people that come on these forums making all sorts of claims, but providing no evidence or proof to substantiate such claims, because these people are clearly here for no other reason than because they enjoy the lime light - they actually have nothing remotely tangible to bring to the party. Energetic forum abounds with such know-it-all (read as: know-nothing) characters. And most of us know who they are.
Oh, and just to add to the point on patents, there are cart loads of patents claiming super-efficient electrolysis and dissociation of the water molecule that aren't worth the paper they are written on, though there still seems to be folk that see a patent as proof of a working model, when nothing could be further from the truth - patents mean diddly-squat!
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.23, 11:18:23
@ramset
After decades of claims of free energy machines and not one being successfully duplicated, such claimers must be treated for what they are: liars.
If they affirm they have OU without at least a third party duplication or without giving all needed informations for a third party duplication, I consider that they are harmful charlatans. It doesn't a matter that they deceive the others consciously or by self-complacency.
These guys and their followers hate to be contradicted, they hate the free speech, they treat their contradictors with contempt, they don't answer the objections, they would like monopolize Internet to spread their nonsenses without opposition. When they are challenged and have the power to oust their contradictors, for instance by banning them from a forum, they do it. So they must be fought without pity, they are only pretentious and useless prophets, version third millennium, exploiting the human credulity for money or for their self-satisfaction, this one of an idiot wanting to feel a great inventor.
I think you've got it covered here Exn, and as per usual, I couldn't agree more.
In self assessment tests, incompetent people rank themselves much higher than competent persons.
So we see this nearly everywhere on OU forums.
I agree totally Farrah and Exn.
What do I consider a competent person? In regards to a "scientific researcher":
One who understands and is skilled in the use and interpretation of his measuring equipment and it's limits.
One who carefully records his experimental data and test results for peer review.
One who questions his own experimental data and first looks for answers through conventional understanding.
One who has enough understanding of conventional science to make reasoned judgements in forming a hpothesis.
One who is willing to deeply research prior art on the subject under study.
One who is able to communicate new ideas or hypothesis in a clear concise fashion.
One who understands what effects have already been looked at in detail and are fairly well understood.
Then perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.
There is more....anyone care to add?
(ION, checking his watch, notes that the contrarian should arrive at any moment)
I'd say that pretty well does it (defines it.)
It would be wondrous indeed if within the
world of scientific research those standards
could be conscientiously adhered to by all
who reside there. :(
If the world of science could be truly independent
and freed from all external pressures, political and
otherwise. Getting back to its original purpose; to
find truth rather than pushing some AGENDA. >:-)
Aye, Farrah does have a unique talent for hitting that
proverbial nail squarely on its head. Ex does well too.
That's a very decent check list, ION.
And reading down the list it is quite clear that many OU claimants or indeed anyone claiming new, so-called unknown science often fail to tick even one of the boxes.
How many times do we see people claiming something as new, when in actual fact the prior art is well-known and fully understood. It seems that very few people are prepared to knuckle down and do their homework - however misguided they're only interested in one thing: the glory!
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.02.27, 12:51:15
One who can use their imagination.
DC.
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.
Albert Einstein
Sigh........
The "Contrarian" must be sleepin in,So Chet the "glory seeker" is gonna step in for a quick comment.
A Sincere purpose !! well defined by "actions" or ethics and personal history, that would indicate they are not running on "Agenda"!! or status Quo !{here on false pretense ] or seeking "Glory"
Personal integrity ,someone who can be brutally honest even if it means personal loss embarrassment or hardship...
Character plays a big part in all of this Brutal honesty as well as Ego.......
In addition to the above "standards", a slight addendum to purpose .....for the sake of forming an actual community!
Actually wanting to be a part of an Open source community working together with others towards a common goal [NOT ""sneaky""BUSINESS Harvesters !!}
Defining the goal should be a good mandate towards a solid "foundation"...
Thx
Chet the Glory seeker [Chet grabs another very dull dart and flings it towards the ever diminishing 8x10 glossy}
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.02.27, 12:51:15
One who can use their imagination.
DC.
Thanks DC
This line:
QuoteThen perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.
The "novel way" implies having imagination.
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.02.27, 13:43:16
The REALLY true sign of intelligence is knowing how to live peacefully with a woman ;+}
DC.
I have doubts about that. According to my wife of multiple decades in a peaceful marriage I'm as dumb as a rock ;D
Quote from: DeepCut on 2013.02.27, 13:43:16
The REALLY true sign of intelligence is knowing how to live peacefully with a woman ;+}
...
This intelligence should firstly solve the problem of squaring the circle, which is much more simple ;)
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.26, 17:06:30
...
What do I consider a competent person? In regards to a "scientific researcher":
One who understands and is skilled in the use and interpretation of his measuring equipment and it's limits.
One who carefully records his experimental data and test results for peer review.
One who questions his own experimental data and first looks for answers through conventional understanding.
One who has enough understanding of conventional science to make reasoned judgements in forming a hpothesis.
One who is willing to deeply research prior art on the subject under study.
One who is able to communicate new ideas or hypothesis in a clear concise fashion.
One who understands what effects have already been looked at in detail and are fairly well understood.
Then perhaps something new can be launched by using the "known" in a novel way, as most inventions do.
There is more....anyone care to add?
...
I couldn't say it better.
About the question of imagination, it's rather "New ideas" mentioned above that are really required.
I agree that imagination for producing new ideas and pragmatic results is useful. This is imagination dealing with the reality through competence (Tesla).
But unfortunately in the free energy field, imagination is widely based on the following archetype: "
couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity!". Yes it's also imagination!
Too many imaginative people saw themselves as bright minds because they wouldn't be conditioned by the academic knowledge and they would "think outside the box". But their imagination is in fact very narrow: they don't even imagine that such products of their imagination have already be thought and rejected for good reasons, often by academics, sometimes centuries before them. ;D
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.28, 08:48:40
I couldn't say it better.
About the question of imagination, it's rather "New ideas" mentioned above that are really required.
I agree that imagination for producing new ideas and pragmatic results is useful. This is imagination dealing with the reality through competence (Tesla).
But unfortunately in the free energy field, imagination is widely based on the following archetype: "couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity!". Yes it's also imagination!
Too many imaginative people saw themselves as bright minds because they wouldn't be conditioned by the academic knowledge and they would "think outside the box". But their imagination is in fact very narrow: they don't even imagine that such products of their imagination have already be thought and rejected for good reasons, often by academics, sometimes centuries before them. ;D
couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity.
Lol-yes how stupid are they.
I mean thats as bad as some one telling us that heavier than air machines can fly,or man can travel faster than the speed of sound.
Then there were those loonies that said we will go to the moon lol.
Not to mention that scifi show start trek,with there silly little hand held flip comunicators.
Oh and what about there ! way out there ! ion star drive's lol.
And here is a realy good one-modifying beach sand to make it the basis of a machine that could out do the human brain-and only be the size of your thumb nail-Lol.
We should listen to those academics-they know there stuff.
The fact is that the very same people as our selfs will be laughing at us,just as we laugh at those that said it will never work 100 year's ago.
The knowledge you have today is only basic of what is yet to come.
There is nothing that cant be done.
Only our knowledge stop's a machine from working,but as history has shown us over and over again-the day will come when we are found to be wrong and that motor coupled to a generator will power itself and provide free electricity.
A good example is using a diamond to play vinyl records, DOH
A scientist would never have thought of that one either :)
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.28, 10:36:59
couple mechanically a generator to a motor, connect electrically the generator output to the motor, and you get free energy and electricity.
Lol-yes how stupid are they.
I mean thats as bad as some one telling us that heavier than air machines can fly,or man can travel faster than the speed of sound.
Then there were those loonies that said we will go to the moon lol.
Not to mention that scifi show start trek,with there silly little hand held flip comunicators.
Oh and what about there ! way out there ! ion star drive's lol.
And here is a realy good one-modifying beach sand to make it the basis of a machine that could out do the human brain-and only be the size of your thumb nail-Lol.
We should listen to those academics-they know there stuff.
The fact is that the very same people as our selfs will be laughing at us,just as we laugh at those that said it will never work 100 year's ago.
The knowledge you have today is only basic of what is yet to come.
There is nothing that cant be done.
Only our knowledge stop's a machine from working,but as history has shown us over and over again-the day will come when we are found to be wrong and that motor coupled to a generator will power itself and provide free electricity.
Don't make the mistake of painting all of academia and science with such a broad brush because one or two short sighted persons in that club were naysayers. You will find naysayers in every group. If you cherry pick information, you can present any point of view.
Most scientists that could do the calculations were able to project that lighter than air craft were possible if a lightweight power source were only available. When such a source became available, the airplane was naturally birthed.
Almost anyone could predict that radio sets would become miniaturized as science fiction often has predicted.
All of the things you mention were incremental advances built upon prior art, including the Star Trek communicator, an advancement and miniaturization of radio art that we now use daily.
Most of the naysayers come from the uneducated people of the street, not academia and science. Such people were laughing at the idea that moving images could transmitted into their homes, but were wide eyed with amazement when scientists and researchers showed them how it could be done.
Getting a motor to run a generator and close the loop is not an incremental advance of motor / generator technology, but represents a quantum leap in technology, as motors and generators have been around for 150 years and we see no such incremental progression as we have seen in other fields. The field is very mature, but we do not see this miracle. Why is that? Can it be that it is the wrong rock to look under as an energy source? Possibly. Every young schoolboy, when taught about motors and generators will jump to this conclusion of coupling the devices. Many have spent a lifetime and gone to their grave pursuing this.
Of course, we should try, but maybe it would be also good to study the prior art and paths of those that have tried and in addition, the advance of motor technology from it's inception. A hypothesis regarding where the extra energy would come from would also promote such a case.
"Professors" teach or profess what is "known". These are only tools given to the hopefully imaginative that are sometimes used to create new inventions. Anyone with or without imagination can use these tools, but as with any tool, it is up to the skill and creativity of the user.
e.g. a skilled carpenter can create more than just houses for people to live in, yet that may be all they teach in schools.
Thus, his knowledge of tools and skill in using them does not limit him to "just building houses".
By the way, I am not schooled by academia, being mostly self taught, but also continually learning from others, and having to learn in order to excel.
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.28, 14:03:30
Getting a motor to run a generator and close the loop is not an incremental advance of motor / generator technology, but represents a quantum leap in technology, as motors and generators have been around for 150 years and we see no such incremental progression as we have seen in other fields. The field is very mature, but we do not see this miracle.
Point taken ION.
But two things also must be considered.
1-150 years is hardly a large time frame when looking at advancments over the period man has been around.
2-our advancments are govern'd by those that stand to loose billions if such a system existed.
Never asume that it cant or hasnt been done just because you havnt seen it.
We are so young when it come's to what is possable.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.28, 15:43:11
Point taken ION.
But two things also must be considered.
1-150 years is hardly a large time frame when looking at advancments over the period man has been around.
2-our advancments are govern'd by those that stand to loose billions if such a system existed.
Never asume that it cant or hasnt been done just because you havnt seen it.
We are so young when it come's to what is possable.
If incremental advances in science technology did not lead to the development of the airplane or cellphone (as such an argument is often advanced), then it could and should have been created at any point in prior recorded history. This, as we see is not the case.
Yes, 150 years is a short time considering the span of history and some may not be able to see too far in the future, but you will find most successful investors are savvy at predicting which technology will win, and place their bets accordingly. They also stand to gain billions.
I consider motor / generator technology to be very mature.
In my techno world, if I haven't seen it work or can't replicate it, I have to reserve judgement regarding whether it is real or not.
The "free energy industry" has indeed found an almost inexhaustible form of free energy (your dollars earned by your hard work) in selling countless books, dvd's and devices which don't deliver according to their marketing brochure's or websites claims. We could name much more than a handful of posers that parade in that industry.
No one ever lost money by overestimating the stupidity of the average folk, or as P.T. Barnum said: "There's a sucker born every minute"
I agree there will be seeming miracles in the future, but as Arthur C. Clarke said "Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I think we are mostly on the same page.
QuoteWe are so young when it come's to what is possible.
We have yet to acknowledge we are face down in disaster, let alone even lift our heads to try to crawl away from destruction.
A continual faceplant in the corner of insanity.
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.28, 16:22:58
If incremental advances in science technology did not lead to the development of the airplane or cellphone (as such an argument is often advanced), then it could and should have been created at any point in prior recorded history. This, as we see is not the case.
Yes, 150 years is a short time considering the span of history and some may not be able to see too far in the future, but you will find most successful investors are savvy at predicting which technology will win, and place their bets accordingly. They also stand to gain billions.
I consider motor / generator technology to be very mature.
I think we are mostly on the same page.
You may have to reconsider soon.
But yes-we are mostly on the same page.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.03.01, 09:19:03
You may have to reconsider soon.
But yes-we are mostly on the same page.
Tinman
I once had an exciting dream of a self running motor. It seemed so logical in the dream. When I woke, I could not make the slightest headway in a possible method to make it work. I would, like you, love to see such an item work.
Like thousands of others I experimented with many types of magnet / coil arrangements (started around 1983 to present) and also tested some of the ideas presented by the "cult of free energy that sell books and DVD's" on the same subject.
I would be very interested in a cohesive hypothesis of how such an item could work and from where it would draw the energy required for it's motion.
Such a design (if it exists) should be able to be explained with the simplest of configurations, a few magnets and coils and a timing diagram. Does anyone really have such a hypothesis?
Somehow, intuitively, we "feel" it should be possible (if only the right configuration could be found). Is intuition always truthful? I can't answer that.
Most of science fiction is based on either intuition of a future new technology, or projection of current technology by the writer.
I encourage you to dream on and experiment. I hope in the future we can say "its so simple, why didn't anyone think of this before"
Quote from: ION on 2013.03.01, 14:23:40
Tinman
I once had an exciting dream of a self running motor. It seemed so logical in the dream. When I woke, I could not make the slightest headway in a possible method to make it work. I would, like you, love to see such an item work.
Like thousands of others I experimented with many types of magnet / coil arrangements (started around 1983 to present) and also tested some of the ideas presented by the "cult of free energy that sell books and DVD's" on the same subject.
I would be very interested in a cohesive hypothesis of how such an item could work and from where it would draw the energy required for it's motion.
Such a design (if it exists) should be able to be explained with the simplest of configurations, a few magnets and coils and a timing diagram. Does anyone really have such a hypothesis?
Somehow, intuitively, we "feel" it should be possible (if only the right configuration could be found). Is intuition always truthful? I can't answer that.
Most of science fiction is based on either intuition of a future new technology, or projection of current technology by the writer.
I encourage you to dream on and experiment. I hope in the future we can say "its so simple, why didn't anyone think of this before"
Is this the right place to discuss this ? probably not-if looking at some of the comments shot toward those that dare to defy the ruel's that man has set.
But since you have asked here-i will try and answer-as simple as i can.
After many years of reserching and building devices to confirm what i thought to be an effect that go's against current understanding's,i have found this effect to be real.
It is believed that an electromagnet can only work if a current is feed into the coil of the electromagnet.
Well in a certain situation,i have found that no current needs to be introduced into that electromagnet to produce a magnetic field.
This is done using a certain type of transformer,where the secondary becomes the electromagnet itself.
The field produced is an opposite field to that of the primary coil-thus we have an attraction rather than repulsion-this means no lenz force
Infact the result is opposite to the lenz force ruel.
There is no BackEMF produced,but a forwardEMF.
But like i said-this can only be done in a certain situation.
More to the point,it has already been successfuly replicated by two other people-and the effect proven to be there.
How far we can take that effect will depend on the precision of the build.