From various thoughts and questions recently addressed on ou.com, where all my posts are now moderated because I criticized the nonsense of stivep, I came to the conclusion that:
- no overunity machine has ever been demonstrated
- all the machines we have seen so far are either scams (the vast majority), measurement errors, or delusional interpretations of conventional phenomena
- most of the forums dedicated to overunity are sites to make money (energetic, ou.com). Here we are in one of the few exceptions.
- in "make money forums", there are interesting research topics and competent and disinterested contributors, but they are a minority.
- in "make money forums", most contributors are manipulated. They are encouraged to believe, to bloat the least experiment to provide an attractive dream for others like them, and to be loyal to the "preachers", who are favored by the administrators of these sites, who make the buzz of free energy by commenting on the scams, and who claim to explain the machines and know their secrets without ever having presented any proof that they work.
- in "make money forums", rational and critical argumentation is censored because it is opposed to the dream that attracts people that these sites exploit either through direct sales of products or through frequentation paid for by advertising revenues
- for 20 years (I put the craze for free energy at the end of the 90s), no progress has been made in the field and this can easily be explained
- unlike conventional science, or even DIY, no progress is possible because the method is deplorable: you should believe instead of selecting and eliminating. So we learn nothing from our failures, the newcomers take back old ideas and machines and recycle the same nonsense forever.
- no progress is possible also for another reason, as a consequence of the previous points. By encouraging people to believe rather than challenge "inventions", we drive away the most competent and innovative. The young engineer or physicist visiting ou.com or some other forums like that must think he came a site of cranks and uneducated people, not because the ideas would be unconventional and on the fringes of science, which I think would interest them more, but because most of them are stupid or childish. The level is indeed far too low and a matter of faith instead of rationality, because it is the result of the choices of their administrators, favouring the non-competent and the storytellers, far more numerous than those who can really contribute something.
I do not see any progress possible without a radical change.
Here we do not have the concern of "make money" or attendance, but there are still points for improvement of the method.
- The first is to assert that any machine claimed to be overunity is, unless proven otherwise, a scam or a mistake. So all of them have been so far. This will prevent us from working backwards in the name of the absurd idea that our duty would be to demonstrate or verify that such a machine would have overunity when we do not have the burden of proof.
- The second, which results from this, is to detach oneself from the idle references found on the "make money forums" or on youtube or on all these sites as rexresearch that I have quoted myself :(
- The third is to reconnect with "real" science, and to assert that any apparently scientific alternative theory (there are hundreds of them) is a children's tale or pure idiocy as long as it does not present any experiment capable of verifying its predictions with data, predictions that will have to differ from conventional theories.
- Finally, it is not a question of dwelling on what conventional science has taught us, but of going beyond that, that is to say, it is in science that we must situate ourselves, but on the fringe, to try to see what is beyond the edge of the known.
Given the work that I appreciate from some here, work that is both marginal but experimentally meticulous and with a theoretical logic, this is what has already been done, I think we just need to continue and generalize the method.
Everyone is of course free to do what they want, and even if I have a little hope of influence, I only present here my analysis and opinion, not even a draft charter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tmVk9gPiiM
I am in total* agreement with what you have expressed, F6FLT, very well stated.
I also enjoy watching "Skeptical Open Mind" from time to time, he really nails it and always has creative, preposterous devices to drive home the scams. The comical presentation is a welcome relief to the seriousness of the topic.
He really ripped the SM TPU, which was very funny, notwithstanding the major presentation errors on this device ;D.
I enjoy many other FE comic relief items on his channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytPf2D6MOco
You best stated it here:
QuoteFinally, it is not a question of dwelling on what conventional science has taught us, but of going beyond that, that is to say, it is in science that we must situate ourselves, but on the fringe, to try to see what is beyond the edge of the known.
And I would add in another way, to think outside the box, it is a good idea to first know and understand what is inside the box.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
*with perhaps only a few minor exceptions, not worth debating.
It's only a matter of finding the energy source and establish right theory which can be proved or disproved. I see why it is so difficult to do that and it's exactly why Tesla neved published his discovery he mentioned in 1931. He was involved in an kind of game between various intelligence agencies. Because such discovery can also be probably weaponized (like Tesla's "death ray" ).
In my earlier post I stated that "Skeptical Open-Mind" had a few misrepresentations of Steven Mark's TPU in his video:
QuoteHe really ripped the SM TPU, which was very funny, notwithstanding the major presentation errors on this device ;D.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytPf2D6MOco
I feel it necessary to point out some of the errors and misrepresentations in SO-M's video reveal.
1) The most glaring error is: the lamps were not wired in parallel, rather they were in the actual device, wired in series to accommodate the 830 volts DC output of Steven Mark's device. Ten 100 Watt lamps were used in SM's rather than 5 parallel in SO-M version.
2) The lemons in the center of the device is just wrong, rather they were CMC parts from an industrial grade lemon juicer. This is what happens when real information gets corrupted as it trickles down the grapevine.
3) Of lesser importance is the vibrator toy in erect position in the center of the device, near the wrongly identified lemons. Word has it from an official source that the toy was not in fact so placed in plain sight, but rather concealed safely out of sight in the plastic enclosure under the CMC's. Naturally this produced the alleged vibration witnessed by many.
4) The batteries clearly seen in the toy device, were only used for startup, as everyone knows you cannot power up ten 100 Watt lamps with three "C" cells. This is common sense.
5) No witnesses were present to experience the washboard effect of SO-M's device as this effect was not mentioned or demonstrated.
6) When SO-M camera pans under the table, we see a carpet pushed close to the leg of the bedroom table, concealing the line cord that runs under the rug and up the table leg. We see no such carpet in SM's video!!. BTW, SM's table was not modern, rather he preferred Provincial, and it was a dining room table, another significant error.
Well that's all I've got for now. I'll report in when clearer video's of SO-M's device emerge.
Regards
If SM had actually showed measurements of the Device Output
Voltage and Current while under load the videos would have
been much more convincing.
I'd not seen any of Skeptic's vids before. Thanks for the link.
It is good to get a good laugh every now and then...
Quote from: ion on 2019.03.26, 13:30:46
...
I also enjoy watching "Skeptical Open Mind" from time to time, he really nails it and always has creative, preposterous devices to drive home the scams. The comical presentation is a welcome relief to the seriousness of the topic.
He really ripped the SM TPU, which was very funny, notwithstanding the major presentation errors on this device ;D.
I enjoy many other FE comic relief items on his channel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytPf2D6MOco
Hi Ion,
Very relevant video. And excellent device, it's true that two kiwis can be very energetic! Hilarious :)
I didn't know him before I posted it. I was just looking for skeptical views on free energy after I realized that only money could motivate so many people to waste so much time creating deceptive experiments and videos, they couldn't do it just for fun or by egocentrism or mistake.
Quote
...
And I would add in another way, to think outside the box, it is a good idea to first know and understand what is inside the box.
...
I had forgotten this essential point of good sense that I have already thought about, you can't innovate without knowing the old one, I agree with you 100%. Thanks.
Quote from: forest on 2019.03.26, 15:22:44
It's only a matter of finding the energy source and establish right theory which can be proved or disproved
...
Hi Forest,
Before you do anything, the first thing is to check the facts.
If there are no facts, if the facts are ordinary and explained in a conventional way, or if the facts are unverifiable, there is nothing to do, since there is no matter. You can move on to the next topic.
It is only after careful measurements of apparent overunity that the energy source should be sought, not before.
Quote from: muDped on 2019.03.27, 06:53:45
If SM had actually showed measurements of the Device Output
Voltage and Current while under load the videos would have
been much more convincing.
Hi muDped
I agree. We need facts with data first.
Quote
I'd not seen any of Skeptic's vids before...
Me too. It was the fact that I was fired from ou.com that finally made me realize that these sites do not seek free energy but exploit credulity about it. So I thought that other people must have understood it before me, and I looked for sceptical views. Fortunately, I am not alone.
I think that without scepticism, we cannot move forward. Skepticism is not about doubting everything, but about finding the right balance, because as the mathematician Henri Poincaré said:
"
To doubt everything, or to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection"
F6flt
I am still out of town dealing with emergency at my friends facility there is more to this situation at Stephen's I would not say you were fired but as I am trying to type on a tiny phone and very busy here it will have to wait till I get back this weekend
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.03.27, 12:22:01
F6flt
I am still out of town dealing with emergency at my friends facility there is more to this situation at Stephen's I would not say you were fired but as I am trying to type on a tiny phone and very busy here it will have to wait till I get back this weekend
Hi Chet.
Member F6FLT has not been " fired " merely, warned and moderated by Stefan.
@Chet and @Grumage,
I didn't want to talk about that, but after what you said, I have to and I regret having to do it.
My account is not deleted, but be aware of what happened.
My messages are "moderated" for the reason I would "hammer" stivep, false accusation because my posts were only challenging what he said, not him personally.
However none of the posts I have sent since the moderation have been published, although they were technical and not about stivep.
It is de facto the same as an account deletion.
But worse than an account deletion, is the fact that my posts are only published if they are previously accepted by the moderator (probably Hartmann or one of his henchmen), which prevents everyone from judging whether the censorship is legitimate or not, contrary to a moderation by a deletion after publication.
How could I continue to post there? Should I agree to raise my hand as I did in primary school, or should I wait two or three days for a refusal because I would have said why explanations from stivep or other fake promoter are unscientific or for an acceptance when the post is no longer relevant in the discussion thread, and I would have worked for nothing?
In fact, this moderation that Hartmann did not even have the courage to tell me personally but from an anonymous PM, is strictly equivalent to a deletion of an account and he knows it.
On the substance it is worse, it is an infantilization and complete hypocrisy, unacceptable among free men unless you agree to be treated like a dog. So "I'm fired" is the right expression.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.03.27, 14:48:26
@Chet and @Grumage,
I didn't want to talk about that, but after what you said, I have to and I regret having to do it.
My account is not deleted, but be aware of what happened.
My messages are "moderated" for the reason I would "hammer" stivep, false accusation because my posts were only challenging what he said, not him personally.
However none of the posts I have sent since the moderation have been published, although they were technical and not about stivep.
It is de facto the same as an account deletion.
But worse than an account deletion, is the fact that my posts are only published if they are previously accepted by the moderator (probably Hartmann or one of his henchmen), which prevents everyone from judging whether the censorship is legitimate or not, contrary to a moderation by a deletion after publication.
How could I continue to post there? Should I agree to raise my hand as I did in primary school, or should I wait two or three days for a refusal because I would have said why explanations from stivep or other fake promoter are unscientific or for an acceptance when the post is no longer relevant in the discussion thread, and I would have worked for nothing?
In fact, this moderation that Hartmann did not even have the courage to tell me personally but from an anonymous PM, is strictly equivalent to a deletion of an account and he knows it.
On the substance it is worse, it is an infantilization and complete hypocrisy, unacceptable among free men unless you agree to be treated like a dog. So "I'm fired" is the right expression.
Dear F6FLT
I also received a "smackdown" from Hartmann many years ago when I was posting under a different name there. I was guilty of exposing a fraud that was being perpetrated by one of the members / presenters. The website was garnering a lot of "hits and traffic" because of the fraud, I'm sure very good for Hartmann's advertisers.
It saddened me that Hartmann would lower his standard to this degree, as he was once a somewhat serious researcher, and is certainly somewhat skilled in electronics.
I only very rarely post there anymore, if at all, as I no longer support sites that monetize, a conflict of interest.
Like you I am a skeptic, possibly to the extreme, but I really liked your quote:
Quote"To doubt everything, or to believe everything, are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection"
There is also a saying "be careful not to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater"
Sometimes the water can be muddied by less than honorable fellows.
The real question and point of your thread is: How can we move forward in such a climate of scams and misrepresentations?
We do need an improved charter or at least direction, as lately we have become immersed in vetting all the new slick advertising and promos of scams that are filling the many pages here.
I don't expect much of forums these days as the focus on a given topic is short lived or soon derailed.
Regards
Quote from: ion on 2019.03.27, 15:11:18
...
There is also a saying "be careful not to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater"
Sometimes the water can be muddied by less than honorable fellows.
Regards
Certainly we must not throw the baby, but I think we must stop being complacent with the polluters of water.
They lock their sites so that especially those who make them allegiance or who are fooled by their stories can express themselves. They produce anything as long as it is sensational to attract people. But they need Youtube, and on Youtube they're not the masters. We can still be heard there, thanks to the comments.
What I can't say on ou.com or on energetic forum, I express in youtube comments, for example about stivep's videos, we can say a lot more.
Even if it is not our priority, which is rather the personal invention of free energy solutions, criticizing those that are obviously only products from polluters can be beneficial for water cleaning.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.03.27, 16:17:11
Certainly we must not throw the baby, but I think we must stop being complacent with the polluters of water.
They lock their sites so that especially those who make them allegiance or who are fooled by their stories can express themselves. They produce anything as long as it is sensational to attract people. But they need Youtube, and on Youtube they're not the masters. We can still be heard there, thanks to the comments.
What I can't say on ou.com or on energetic forum, I express in youtube comments, for example about stivep's videos, we can say a lot more.
Even if it is not our priority, which is rather the personal invention of free energy solutions, criticizing those that are obviously only products from polluters can be beneficial for water cleaning.
Well I'm all for the water cleaning when I have the time or feel strongly enough about a given false claim to critique it.
Unfortunately time is running out for some of us, so we do not have the effort left to police the other forums and youtube videos.
Also unfortunate are the new generations of young viewers that fall prey to all the scams and waste their precious time chasing them. I wish I could save them from their folly, I sympathize with their plight but it is not my job, as I am now busy saving myself from my own follies.
I think the new wave of scams that appear will eventually dilute the free energy search to the point where nothing seen will be believed, due to the disappointment of replicators. Hopefully this will raise the bar to where it should have been in the first place, and produce new waves of extreme skeptics that will busy themselves with debunking the false claims. It will be the natural reaction, a cleansing.
As for the zealots that lock themselves into their echo chambers of folly, maybe that is also good, keeping them from crowding out with their noise the less traveled path that we must take. I view those forums as holding tanks for the uninitiated.
Therefore I think the situation will right itself in time, when enough wallets have been emptied, and time has been wasted, there will be a new due diligence to be applied to any claim, a strong skeptical reaction force will be created.
From the I Ching (roughly):
"When inferior men multiply and grow in numbers, it sometimes becomes necessary that the superior man withdraw from the situation"Regards
P.T. Barnum is reputed to have said it (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pt-barnum-greatest-humbug-them-all-180967634/) some decades ago and
it remains true to this day. Hollywood has shown us too that
there can be big money in fantasy and fiction.
The political climate in America has long been based upon the
power of the lie and sophisticated methods of deception.
It's not surprising that numerous forums operate from the same
business model. There is no room for Truth in such enterprises.
Caveat Emptor.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.03.26, 12:39:53
From various thoughts and questions recently addressed on ou.com, where all my posts are now moderated because I criticized the nonsense of stivep,...
That is deplorable
Quote from: ion on 2019.03.27, 17:10:56
...
From the I Ching (roughly):
"When inferior men multiply and grow in numbers, it sometimes becomes necessary that the superior man withdraw from the situation"
Regards
:)
In the Enlightenment, philosophers and cultured people thought they could raise everyone's level through education, in the context of humanism.
This worked in the 19th and 20th centuries, the people trusted the intellectual elites and tried to keep up, for example by taking an interest in science.
Then came the Internet, which could have been a formidable vehicle for knowledge and the advancement of ideas. Unfortunately it has become the propaganda tool of opinion and conspiracy theories of the mediocre who are now unable to identify the intellectual elites or who believe they are their equals or who reject them all. The mediocre speak to the mediocre who recognize themselves in the discourse, and mediocrity progresses in a snowball effect that stifles everything.
Perhaps we will have a threshold effect, because any excess in one direction ends up producing an opposite movement, but we do not yet see the sign. I Ching may be right, even if withdrawing does not go in the direction of humanist progress.
From F6FLT:
(Regarding the internet and especially also to forums):
QuoteUnfortunately it has become the propaganda tool of opinion and conspiracy theories of the mediocre who are now unable to identify the intellectual elites or who believe they are their equals or who reject them all. The mediocre speak to the mediocre who recognize themselves in the discourse, and mediocrity progresses in a snowball effect that stifles everything.
I agree
QuotePerhaps we will have a threshold effect, because any excess in one direction ends up producing an opposite movement, but we do not yet see the sign. I Ching may be right, even if withdrawing does not go in the direction of humanist progress.
Withdraw, while appearing to be abandoning the field to the inferior (mediocre) may be a form of constructive retreat.
Best probably that the superior men gather together in solidarity to protect themselves from the slings and arrows of the inferior rather than wearing themselves out through constant engagement, especially when they are severely outnumbered.
Bad science by certain individuals will right itself eventually, when the proponents of it wear themselves out and empty their own (and others) wallets pursuing ideas which were flawed at the very foundation. We need not engage in that sandbox.
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise" Wm Blake
Quote from: Ion
Bad science by certain individuals will right itself eventually...
That is very true. For the "individual."
Sadly, when Corporations adopt deceptive Bad Science to
enhance their Bottom Line without concern for the People
and their welfare, the likelihood of "righting" is greatly reduced.
Corporations, with their power of Big Money, find numerous
ways to protect their Bad Science while accusing all who
protest with Truth of being Conspiracy Theorists.
Such is our World today. Even Governments are now
Corporations who are in the business of Doing Business
and especially, in the case of America, Doing Empire.
The War on Truth has produced many casualties.
Even so, we never lose Hope. Change is on the way.
Good points, MuDped.
For example, I see alternatives to chemotherapy - which evidently work. But many of these alternatives are ILLEGAL in the US, whereas chemo is pushed - and very expensive (i.e., lucrative).
With regard to alt-energy, I think proton + metal reactions look very promising, as I've said (in some detail) before.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.03.30, 17:10:35
Good points, MuDped.
For example, I see alternatives to chemotherapy - which evidently work. But many of these alternatives are ILLEGAL in the US, whereas chemo is pushed - and very expensive (i.e., lucrative).
In the United States, everything that works is used to make money. It is more profitable and easy for some to recover and exploit real solutions than for others or the same ones, to make them disappear.
If they are not deployed, it is because they do not work or are insufficient (such as diet). Steve McQueen learned the "alternatives" the hard way. I did not open this thread for the promotion of the principle of conspiracy theories, on the contrary.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.03.31, 12:43:38
In the United States, everything that works is used to make money. It is more profitable and easy for some to recover and exploit real solutions than for others or the same ones, to make them disappear.
If they are not deployed, it is because they do not work or are insufficient (such as diet). Steve McQueen learned the "alternatives" the hard way. I did not open this thread for the promotion of the principle of conspiracy theories, on the contrary.
What are you calling "conspiracy theories"?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.03.31, 12:58:43
What are you calling "conspiracy theories"?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
Example:
"chemotherapies are expensive, so they are pushed while low-cost alternatives are avoided"
instead of
"chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective, so they are used instead of dubious alternatives".
The first assertion is (at least) a fallacy of the single cause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause). Most conspiracy theories are of this nature, including all those that claim to explain why free energy inventions are not exploited.
F6: "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective, so they are used instead of dubious alternatives".
Are you really saying that "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective"??
Seriously?
Unfortunately, it does seem that Critical Thinking for too
many today is an unknown experience.
Is it the fear of being labeled a "Conspiracy Theorist" which
freezes the minds of those who have lost the love of Truth?
That Cancer is curable is well established.
That the Natural Substances which are capable of curing
Cancer are very inexpensive and readily available has led
to their being declared "Illegal" by the Powers That Be should
be a revelation.
It has been reported that there are clinics in certain areas
of Europe and Mexico which utilize natural cures which are
inaccessible in the U.S.
There is no Cure for Undue Influence it seems.
People should be free to make their own informed decisions
about treatments they may choose to pursue without the
Undue Influence of Corporate America.
https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/alternative-medicine
When those who claim that there are treatments as effective as chemotherapy have their cancer, I hope they will use them.
They will be given a well-earned Darwin Award after their death. They should also be given another award for their death which save the lives of people misled by their speeches.
Neither ignorance nor sincerity excuses anything. Do not count on me for any complacency towards obscurantism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/us/drug-sales-bring-huge-profits-and-scrutiny-to-cancer-doctors.html
https://csn.cancer.org/node/139411
My oncologist when confronted with this information (the chemo concession) remarked that "the system is broken, and will remain broken for a long time" his words.
I usually don't like to talk about this but I watched many very close members of my family die a slow painful death from chemo, and complications from chemo, not from the cancer itself, even though they had early diagnosis. None were saved.
One young nephew even quit the chemo and started to recover and he looked quite healthy at one point. He changed his diet radically. He went from near death like pall to healthy and splitting logs with us in the backyard. That was in March 2007. In April 2007, the new long awaited trial medication came through for him, so he decided to take it. He died later that month, emaciated.
In my own diagnosis (2015) I refused the chemo and never looked back, nor bought into the fear, changed my diet and still split and carry firewood at 73. Maybe my time will be up soon, but I feel good and people tell me I look much younger than my age.
One friend thanks me to this day for pointing him to alternatives which he believes saved his life. He was diagnosed over ten years ago and refused the chemo.
I have researched this topic fairly extensively, have some personal experience, but don't claim to any expertise.
Just personal stories, not statistics, easy to discredit I'm sure.
FWIW
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.04.02, 10:05:10
https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/alternative-medicine
When those who claim that there are treatments as effective as chemotherapy have their cancer, I hope they will use them.
They will be given a well-earned Darwin Award after their death. They should also be given another award for their death which save the lives of people misled by their speeches.
Neither ignorance nor sincerity excuses anything.
[b]Do not count on me for any complacency towards obscurantism.[/b]
Eschew obscurantism!PS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated.
F6FLT,
I had heart arrhythmia for 25 years in my younger days, it would cause me the loss of at least 1 day a week when all I could do was lay down. To shorten the story I cured myself completely of it with an alternative treatment that I found on line, By a doctor (William C. Douglas). It has now been about 12 years and I have never had another recurrence since. The cure was simple, quick and very cheap, but as Dr. Douglas said at the time other doctors will never tell you about it (no money in curing people of anything). If anyone is interested I will tell how it is done, so please don't give me crap about alternative therapies not working, I know some do!
Respectfully
Room
PhysicsProf said:
QuotePS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated.
The choice was simple: I watched nearly everyone around me that took the poison die a slow horrible death. Very few survived, and the ones that did, it is doubtful they ever really had cancer. Considering that, I was not about to stand in the same line waiting for my turn to "drink the poison" so to speak.
The scare tactic used is: "You have pre-cancerous cells in your biopsy, we better put you on chemo and right away".
Just about everyone has pre-cancerous cells in their body. But look at the high cost and high profit from chemo for the answer.
So I didn't have courage to stand in that line, but if I was going to die, I would choose a friendlier method.
The Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in traditional medicine for many things e.g. re-plumbing arteries, broken bones, excising dangerous tumors that can crowd out healthy organs and much, much more. But buy into the cancer industry? sorry, no sale.
There is a lot to tell of my personal story, but we should move all this stuff to another thread. The idea would be to
take inventory of our immediate surroundings and report in what we see happening, what works what doesn't.
All for now
Regards
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.04.03, 12:21:48
Eschew obscurantism!
PS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated.
He only took risks. A natural remission is always possible.
One or some particular cases are not significant.
http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log30.htm
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019.04.01, 12:58:55
F6: "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective, so they are used instead of dubious alternatives".
Are you really saying that "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective"??
Seriously?
Is this question there to hide the emptiness of your file?
Thanks to "official" medicine 50% of people survive cancer for 10 or more years (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival#heading-One).
Show us the statistics of the alternative solutions and the studies that allow you to say they would "evidently work".
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.04.05, 10:08:51
Is this question there to hide the emptiness of your file?
Thanks to "official" medicine 50% of people survive cancer for 10 or more years (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/survival#heading-One).
Show us the statistics of the alternative solutions and the studies that allow you to say they would "evidently work".
Only 50% C.C
So aradiating your body is the way to go C.C
Sometimes the doctors dont know it all.
High dose vitamin C will kill almost everything,including cancers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHhLYqF85EA
I can supply many more video's showing such living proof if required.
Brad
If anyone is seeking proof as to why vitamin C work's,then watch the below.
Nothing like increasing the bodies electron count to kill off the bad guys O0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpptUsJFCEY
Adding this video as well.
Seems those that studdy why vitamin C dose what it dose are all coming up with the same answer-->vitamin C is an electron donor .
From 8:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Z0Jw-gvwc
Brad
" An apple a day keeps the doctor away "
Very popular saying when I were a lad!! O0
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.04.05, 12:28:12
Only 50% C.C
Yes, almost 100% better than alternative solutions.
Only 0.1% for the alternative solutions, including natural remissions?
Quote
I can supply many more video's showing such living proof if required.
We don't need videos. We need studies with statistics. The problem is not simple:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/vitamin-c-pdq
Vitamin C may increase the effectiveness of cancer treatments. This was suggested by the study published in the journal Cancer Cell. Taking high doses of vitamin C during treatment would weaken cancer cells, making them more sensitive to radiation and chemotherapy. It's not question of replacing chemotherapy.
In any case, it's still conventional medicine, just progress, not alternative medicine. New cancer treatments will certainly be found in the future. A new treatment is not an "alternative" except during the trial period when it can be offered to volunteers. Then it will replace the old one. Medicine has been working in this way for decades.
Hi F6FLT,
Very interesting post! It inspires a rather windy post.
Not having the skills to do actual research, I do extensive data research, in the 'whatever I can do' category of helping to prevent climate change.
I assume that if an anomaly exists, then researchers and inventors and engineers will notice it over and over, throughout all time and space. So I crunch as much I can of the whole data space, looking for patterns of genuine anomaly, without regard for source.
I do see such patterns, many scattered over the whole scientific (and -un) literature, that won't go away, without the truth being established.
Just as a purely random example, there are many reports Active Nitrogen releases anomalous energy when going to a lower energy state. This was first studied by Rayleigh. This is a legitimate investigation for sure, that has mostly been forgotten.
At the same time I see large scale patterns of failure with certain ideas in the overunity subculture, with magnet motors, motor-alternator battery systems, sliding gravity wheels, and other such tired perpetual motions invented over and over, every year. There are more than 2 million patents for permanent magnet motors in the WO patent system! the madness must cease :-)
This enormous blast of noisy data actually prevents real signals of new science from being noticed. You have to exclude all these bogus things. It is really a Big Data problem, in a lot of way. I don't mean the big data or 'all of science' or the big data of 'all of home experimentation', but both. Because I do consider independent observations from outside of science as being useful to consider. And there is always a fringe in science somewhere, that does become the real thing. Alfred Wegener, anyone?
If one is willing to ruins one's eyes in the cause of discovery :-), then there is a considerable residue which seems to say something new in energy science, and is certainly worth thinking about for a few minutes. Most of this residue turns out to be something either quite conventional, or an error of some sort.
From what remains, a small residue can be extracted that is NOT fully known by science, and NOT noise. It is not usually the stuff talked about in overunity forums, although there is some overlap.
What I've found is that, over time, the completely conventional technology holds more interest for me, although I do keep my hand in an esoteric project or two. I've turned away from overunity for two reasons.
First, because what I see in the total data picture is that most conventional science and engineering does not take advantage of its own art. If all the worthy conventional technology in, for instance, the solar cell literature, were to be utilized by humankind, we would be in a very different situation now. We don't need free energy, we just need to use what has already been created. Useful data that is not being used, is lying around in heaps.
Second, I decided some time ago that there if someone invented a device that transduced some X energy into something that could supply the world with free electric power, it would not necessarily be a great thing. Widespread adoption of such a device would result in a pumping of heat into the Earth environment 'from the X dimension', which would be detrimental to it.
This led naturally to a focus on data mining the solar and thermoelectric technology, which has less of a 'thermal footprint' than a free energy device.
Regards,
Fred
Correction: I should have said 2000 magnet motor patents, not 2 million. But 2000 is more than enough.
F
Hi Orthofiled,
I agree with most of what you're saying. I will therefore only answer the few points of disagreement.
I think that most of what we know is used, at least in physics, and including energy. In particular, electronics, which today even uses quantum mechanics theory, is a model of its kind in the use of knowledge.
What is not used is generally because we have better instead for the same function, or because the theory is there but not yet the technology to implement it, or at too high a cost.
If pioneers like Wegener propose the theory of continental drift and it is initially rejected, it is because the phenomena on the scale of the earth are complex. It is not just a question of conformity of thought that would prevent the acceptance of new ideas by experts. But in physics, it is often much simpler, when it is only a laboratory experiment. However, the experimental novelty must be unambiguous.
Of course there are "anomalies" sometimes, but they are rarely sufficiently controlled to allow anything, as we have seen with LENRs.
The "anomalies" are extremely sought after by physicists themselves, always inclined to challenge their own theories to find what they themselves call a "new physics". They know their limits well, and often look for them, as around the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If we "DIYers" can be useful, it is rather in the implementation of experiments, simple for physicists but not necessarily already done, and it is thanks to the large number and diversity of experimenters that something could emerge in addition to the advances made by professional scientists.
Finally, I think we need free energy, and not only for the obvious reason that we will pay less, that we will possibly pollute less, but because it is the key to the development of other new technologies. For example, we will never be able to have motorized mechanical legs to allow the disabled to move around, if we cannot supply sufficiently powerful and autonomous motors with an onboard, cheap and abundant energy.
Free energy will boost technology in a fantastic way. We can be against it, fundamentalist ecologists are against it, but the question of the heat input that this energy will give off will remain negligible compared to that coming from the sun.
The earth receives an average power of 173 PW from the sun. The average consumption of the earth's inhabitants is around 16 TW, which represents less than 0.01% of that of the sun. Even if we multiplied by 100 the world's energy consumption, and if it were to degrade completely to heat, it would still be negligible. As far as heat is concerned, free energy is therefore not a danger to the earth.
Hi F6FLT,
You make some good points. You've changed my mind on one thing.
I can say categorically that many important discoveries and concepts are not being used, because I see them everyday in patent searches. IF human beings were rational, and had infinite memory for what had gone before, and companies didn't bury projects in nonsense, and academics worked in an ideal world where only good ideas were developed, and all important papers were read by everyone, and inventors didn't die just after they patented their gadget, then what you say would be true. But none of these things exist in actuality.
I could give examples almost ad infinitum, but I'll simply mention one that I discussed in another thread. Before the existence of BiTe type thermoelectric materials, all TEG inventors had to work with were the thermoelectric metals, which have extremely small outputs as you know. In an attempt to maximize those outputs, they worked out many ways of reducing heat conduction almost to zero by using geometries that created 'thermal gaps'. I accumulated more than 20 patents on these quite clever technologies, which could well be applied in today's TEG, and should be. As soon as the BiTe materials were discovered, all this research was abandoned, or should I say all inventors and researchers who were working on the earlier methods no longer got funding or investing.
There is nothing unconventional or unworkable about this technology, but combined with more recent developments, it would allow us to reach near Carnot efficiencies in 'electronic heat engines' and huge amounts of waste heat could be economically turned into electricity.
As economists used to do with consumers, you assume a hypothetical 'rational actor' who always chooses the best science and technology to develop, based purely on evidence and without any prejudices. As I'm sure you will acknowledge, this is not actually how science works, any more than any other human endeavor. To put science in the special category of 'the only social activity where people always ultimately choose the right things' is to imply a scientific version of the 'will of god', the 'hidden hand of the market' or 'the dialectic of the proletariat' that makes people end up doing the right things, just because of the mighty power of 'science' as some sort of reified activity outside of human behavior.
I agree that you are correct about the amount of heat that a hypothetical free energy device would add to the Earth-- probably not enough to make any difference. I had not really done the calculation in detail. I'm already involved in free energy research which is just inherently interesting, so nothing changes in my actions, although I might put more attention on it again.
I could argue that even if FE were developed, it would probably not be used en masse simply because of skepticism about it (there are some possible examples). I see this happening even with technologies that are perfectly conventional but just are too innovative for people to get their heads around. For instance, I was involved in a project to use parametric amplification in solar panels, that was going toward commercial development. It was very difficult to gain much traction, because the photovoltaic people simply didn't believe that parametric amplification existed-- Several EEs had to be convinced in long phone calls that it really was a thing :-)
I'm not sure what a fundamentalist ecologist is, but if it is someone who agrees with consensus science about the nature of climate change, then I guess I is one.
Regards,
Fred
Hi orthofield,
I agree with you that not everything is necessarily rational in the choice of technologies to be developed, but much more so than one might think. Because rationality does not only operate in the choice of the intrinsic quality of the products to be built, but also and above all in the gain that will be obtained, and in addition, often, in the short-term gain.
For example, if a company has to modify its entire production chain to create better motors using Halbach arrays like the Catalan one we saw in another thread, the implementation cost will not necessarily cover the marketing gain. So it will continue to build traditional motors even if it is not the best technology, but we will still be dealing with a "rational actor", if we take into account the choice criteria he takes.
This also explains why patents are not used despite their technological interest, even if I think that most unused patents are simply not of sufficient interest.
I think people are rather pragmatic, both producers and consumers. If we offer them things that work at an affordable cost, and meet their needs, they take them. We have seen the tremendous development of electricity since the end of the nineteenth century (people quickly abandoned the candle in favour of the electric lamp), we saw in the 20th century the tremendous development of phone, radio, then television, everyone bought it, we saw that of household equipment, refrigerator, washing machine, microwave oven, we saw that of the Internet, smartphones in the 21st century...
I am not worried: if free energy becomes real, it will be adopted on a massive scale. As long as it can be produced by low-volume generator, no electrical equipment will be sold without its integrated power source because no one likes all these wires and plugs lying around. The only question for me is: "find the thing".
Hi F6FLT,
Yes, if one includes short term gain as a rational consideration, then I would say your picture fits reality. In that way, the scorpion who stings the frog that is transporting him across the pond is a rational actor :-)
Many inventors believe that the workability of their invention in their lab automatically translates to commercial success, and often have exaggerated ideas about what the market is willing to absorb. However, the technology may still be a very good one. For instance, just from patent scans of yesterday, some thermionic converters were made in the 70s that eliminated the space charge issue and had heat conversion efficiencies of more than 50%. However, using them for solar power would entail a new industry from scratch. These patents go into the dead file-- until someone mentions they are making a thermionic generator.
At least in established areas like PV power, these commercial and sociological considerations lead me to look for things that can be adapted to the current systems, or at least require only that new electronics be installed (giving a solar controller company an opportunity, if they choose to bite). After surveying some 2K patents in the solar field over the last couple years, I have two, maybe three such concepts that have the possibility of actually improving yields substantially without massive retrofitting. So, yes, it's true that most patents are not of sufficient interest, but given that there are zillions of patents, continuous looking steadily comes up with great technologies that are not being used. Stuff falls through the cracks.
Now on to the main focus: "the thing". The very first project I started way back in 1996 (when I had to bus to the U library to look at microfiche :-) was to examine every patent or project that someone, somewhere claimed to show excess energy, simply to see where the most reports were. I wanted to count the number of reports in each technological area to see where there might be more smoke, which might be some fire.
Aside from those things that catch the unskilled popular imagination-- the aforementioned PM motors, sliding, rotating gizmos, etc,-- the most anomalies were in sparks, arcs, and plasmas--all likely related to LENR. There was also a lot of 'high strangeness' in water/steam physics.
But, at the risk of looking where it was easy to look, I focused early on solid state electromagnetic devices, reasoning that our society was moving away from rotary devices whenever possible, and LENR, plasma, sonoluminescence, etc. were outside the ken of home experimenters for the most part, and not likely to be something that would ever be installed in a home or car.
Within the area of solid state electromagnetic devices, two areas developed to be of special interest-- parametric transformers, oscillators and amplifiers (because the thermodynamics of these devices seemed to be exceptionally murky and involve 'noise coherence'), and transformers with two or more secondaries, whose secondaries were made to react on each other rather than on the primary. There are an unusual number of projects/patents using this pattern, starting with the Hubbard Coil, going through the Unidirectional Transformer of Raymond Jensen, to the recent patent from William Alek, and even to some projects in these forums (as well as many more obscure devices). There is also some basic physics involving positive and negative interference, with examples in acoustics and nano scale optics, that supports this line of inquiry.
Since then, although I continue to survey multitudinous patents and projects, I've devoted my spare time to promoting concepts in those two areas, with moderate success. Every test involving the 'secondary mutual reaction' principle has shown an absence of load on the primary, and only excessive magnetizing current in the primary due to inadequate transformer design has prevented them from being OU. Detailed power balance shows an effect. This is a technical hurdle that I continually push against in my own inventing and theorizing. Of the parametric projects, only one involving varactor diodes seemed to show some promise, so this line of research has lain fallow for a while.
Regards,
Fred
NICE work, Fred! O0
"The very first project I started way back in 1996 (when I had to bus to the U library to look at microfiche :-) was to examine every patent or project that someone, somewhere claimed to show excess energy, simply to see where the most reports were. I wanted to count the number of reports in each technological area to see where there might be more smoke, which might be some fire.
Aside from those things that catch the unskilled popular imagination-- the aforementioned PM motors, sliding, rotating gizmos, etc,-- the most anomalies were in sparks, arcs, and plasmas--all likely related to LENR. There was also a lot of 'high strangeness' in water/steam physics. "
With your perspective having reviewed so many ideas - which SPECIFIC ones would you say are the most promising? Anything we can build/replicate?
Yes, nice work Fred.
Very much where I'm working atm with the TPU, but it is a long hard slog which takes up both money and time, hoping to be near the end of that slog but still do not know exactly where the gain comes from. I'm banking on charge differential within our surroundings which includes anything between the ionosphere and the core of the Earth, just need the means to tickle this into a receptor and convert to usable power ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
I only place this here to note the result of an experiment which I have been wanting to do for quite some time ,and was actually talking to Tinman about [once again] a few days ago.
here
HBE [hydrogen bond energy ]experiments need more attention IMO.
Dreamthinkbuild Started a topic here today https://overunity.com/18208/bio-inspired-plasma-generation/msg533416/#msg533416
posted this Video from Texas A M showing a tenfold decrease in energy required to manifest a plasma by copying nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOdRRjskWcc
also Member Tutanka shared this HBE work at EF forum a few years back
Plasma from Sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmDNDp6EO_w
AND
frequency heterodyne work [Kansius type ??
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkDx32i-7hEo4O2LDO0T5Yw
very Cool stuff IMO and the tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: Chet K on 2019.04.09, 16:32:32
I only place this here to note the result of an experiment which I have been wanting to do for quite some time ,and was actually talking to Tinman about [once again] a few days ago.
here
HBE [hydrogen bond energy ]experiments need more attention IMO.
Dreamthinkbuild Started a topic here today https://overunity.com/18208/bio-inspired-plasma-generation/msg533416/#msg533416
posted this Video from Texas A M showing a tenfold decrease in energy required to manifest a plasma by copying nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOdRRjskWcc
also Member Tutanka shared this HBE work at EF forum a few years back
Plasma from Sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmDNDp6EO_w
AND
frequency heterodyne work [Kansius type ??
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkDx32i-7hEo4O2LDO0T5Yw
very Cool stuff IMO and the tip of the iceberg.
The video of Alex is my reactor, this was when Alex and I worked together in private some years ago. It is a reactor to combine hydrogen and carbon dioxide into CH4 (methane). I got into a lot of trouble with that and why it was not continued, seems some like loads of CO2 in the air and oceans. I then worked on SMD which sort of went off track into so many branches that I got dizzy, just too much for an old brain to handle :D Well Chet you kn ow most of the story.
Regards
Mike 8)
Hi Fred,
I quickly answer about the hypothetical rationality of the "scorpion who stings the frog that is transporting him across the pond". This is not the same case as that of the entrepreneur: the scorpion does not have all the elements to decide, in particular he is not able to anticipate the consequences of his decision, and there is no rationality in instinctive behaviour.
On the other hand, the small entrepreneur who evaluates the cost of building a new production line to implement a promising invention, and gives up because he thinks he is taking too many risks, is well in the rational field. If he has to go into debt, and in the meantime another big company beats him at speed and produces on a large scale before him, he will really lose out regardless of the bright future he might have had in the long run.
Concerning your way of proceeding by looking for interesting leads through a statistical study of patents claiming excess energy is very interesting, especially because you avoided the pitfall of seductive false leads like the PM.
It's funny, because the point where you arrived, like parametric transformers, oscillators and transformers, is very close to the conclusion of a fellow, an electronics engineer that I recently knew, a conclusion that he made after having compiled quite a many experiments and also experimented some of them, one of which he had surprising results. He also added highly non-linear phenomena to the interesting tracks. Your way of thinking seems similar to his.
I believe that this approach is an effective way to make progress. I see two cases to distinguish.
Either we observe more or less by chance real anomalies during experiments, and then we verify the facts and try to target the conditions of their production and improve them. It's the easy way.
Or experiments are carried out related to a previous idea, then the idea must have been very well understood in theory.
Let's take the example of the PM: if my idea is to make a permanent magnet motor, it's not an idea but a fantasy or an absurdity. On the other hand, if my idea is that in such and such a circumstance that I intend to realize, for such and such a reason, the magnetic flux could no longer be conservative, then yes, I can try a PM, I have the underlying theory, otherwise it is a waste of time.
For me, except in the case of the experiment which by chance gives abnormal results and then the research to be done is obvious, but I have not had the chance to observe this case, in all other cases, we must have an idea firmly based on a theory. The idea must never be incompatible with everything we already know and that all the experiments have shown so far. The idea does not necessarily have to conclude an extraction of energy, but at least with a situation that has never been tested before, or even better, causing an a priori paradoxical effect, therefore an open door to new possibilities. My method is to look for this kind of idea.
François
Hi PhysicsProf, F6LT, all,
Thanks! Sure, I can put forth some projects/patents that would have a high chance of success. Unless someone volunteers a liking for plasma, arcs, LENR, water, thermal, I'm just going to stick to the EM area.
I'd rather not put forth one project or concept as 'the one' because that narrows understanding and may cause unnecessary disputation. I'm a synthesizer and pattern see-er, and don't ever consider one experiment or test in isolation. At the same time, as Centraflow mentioned, there is a tendency on forums such as this to disperse an initial experimental direction into multitudinous ideas, and I've been very guilty of that in the past, so I'm careful now to stay on point. I'll record new ideas and theories as we go along, and when/if we get stuck, then maybe something in that pool will help.
Let me first express my biases, as I see them. (You will see others, no doubt :-)
I don't like projects that have no theoretical rationale, are surrounded by mythology, and where there are no clear descriptions of how to get from A to Z. This eliminates a lot of projects, from Moray to TPU, that sound interesting, but the cloud of speculation surrounding them is just too large.
I don't like projects that use unobtainium. "If only we had some Gadolinium, our flux switch would work." :-)
I'm not too interested in who invented what. Almost everything that anyone has invented, or even patented, has been invented before, and patented before. I've irritated two inventors in the last couple of months by showing them prior patent art. In one case, the invention was in commercial production. They did not like it! Inventors are often possessed by their inventions, and there is no room for over-identification with our own inventiveness, as wonderful as it is. Very few inventors actually know their own field of art.
I do like projects where engineering standards are high. Over and over I've seen projects where there was some valid effect, but because good conventional practices were not followed, the effect was buried in losses. Along with this attention to best practices goes of course, standard IEEE testing procedures.
I have to get ready for an appointment, but to start the thinking, one prime candidate for replication/development is attached. Although the info is plenty detailed, please don't fixate on this particular form of the operating principle. But it is a place to start.
Regards,
Fred
Hi F6FLT,
Very briefly, because I'm heading out soon. Yes, I'm afraid my tendency to make jokes sometimes outweighs my interest in a serious discussion :-)
It's true that the small entrepreneur can approach the 'rational actor' status, especially if they are not too enamored of their own bright ideas. I've been a small businessman most of my life (I own a bookstore) so I know that when I am no panicking or excessively greedy, I can make decisions that move things forward.
But my actual experience with CEOs in three pretty well known "OU companies" shows something far from a rational understanding. In all three cases the CEO chose glamorous ideas with lots of bells and whistles over those that showed real promise based on serious study of the principles. In two cases they spent the meager research funding on outright frauds from outside the firm, while leaving the actual R&D team in the dark. Simply putting these bad projects in front of us would have ended the foolishness in a new york minute.
Some good research got done in these companies, but when push came to shove, it was the glamor that sucked them in. So I'm afraid I'm somewhat cynical of the corporate model for progress in this area.
Parametrics: Yes, there is no doubt that some nonlinear phenomena have great promise. It is a tantalizing area where much is known, but little is understood. I'll have a lot to say about this area no doubt, and I've said a lot already in various places (Jean Louis Naudin's website has some early stuff of mine, and some interesting experiments that have not been followed up, in particular getting energy from switching capacitors and inductors.)
http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/tep62par.htm
But my time has run out and I must go! Will write more later.
Regards,
Fred
I regards to the cancer discussion above:
There are several published and reviewed studies on the benefits of melatonin.
There are also several that indicate a link where people get cancer when they stopped taking melatonin.
This paper offers a review of the research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395802/
---------------------
---------------------
Regarding a technology or idea to pursue for our energy needs, I recommend the device explained by "Spherics". "Spherics" provided his own explanation of how this device and similar devices, including the TPU's, are purported to work. I noticed that the Gyroscopic Force theory of Willie Johnson allows for the operation of these devices and provides a more complete physics than is currently supported by mainstream scientists. I hope to start working on this again, later this year.
Dear Fred;
I started a thread for the UDT in the section "Solid State Generators" so those among us so inclined can begin replicating and testing the device.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3756.msg73803;topicseen#msg73803
I for one would like to see this thread continue with your study of FE devices, and directions you and others may point to (and agree to), without the thread becoming a focus or discussion on any particular device. The newly created individual focused topics for each of the devices you present will be the arena for in depth study.
Meanwhile, in this thread it would be interesting to create a master reference list of various categories and subcategories under each heading of devices that you and others deem are worthy of a focused study, e.g Heat to Energy and it's entries.
On another note, I do understand your stance on devices like the TPU and can appreciate that.
Thank you for your in thoughtful contributions to this forum.
Regards
Quote from: orthofield on 2019.04.10, 13:47:59
Hi PhysicsProf, F6LT, all,
Thanks! Sure, I can put forth some projects/patents that would have a high chance of success. Unless someone volunteers a liking for plasma, arcs, LENR, water, thermal, I'm just going to stick to the EM area.
I'd rather not put forth one project or concept as 'the one' because that narrows understanding and may cause unnecessary disputation. I'm a synthesizer and pattern see-er, and don't ever consider one experiment or test in isolation. At the same time, as Centraflow mentioned, there is a tendency on forums such as this to disperse an initial experimental direction into multitudinous ideas, and I've been very guilty of that in the past, so I'm careful now to stay on point. I'll record new ideas and theories as we go along, and when/if we get stuck, then maybe something in that pool will help.
... snip
I'm not too interested in who invented what....
I have to get ready for an appointment, but to start the thinking, one prime candidate for replication/development is attached. Although the info is plenty detailed, please don't fixate on this particular form of the operating principle. But it is a place to start.
Regards,
Fred
And a good place to start! thank you.
I'm reading the Paul Jensen transformer material - it deserves its own thread!
I like his attitude also:
QuoteA Free-Energy Device
by Paul Raymond Jensen
I have built a transformer which supplies more power to its load than is drawn from its primary source.
I named this device The Unidirectional Transformer (UDT), because the magnetic reaction of the load current does not affect the magnetic action of the primary circuit.
The UDT is composed of a parallel LC resonant primary, a split secondary, a gapped magnetic core, and a "feedback winding."
... [lots of details ]
I have invented and developed the UDT on my own, without benefit of any knowledge of other free-energy devices, if they exist, which utilize
the basic principles of UDT operation.
Please feel free to use this information as you desire. However, I hope that no one will attempt to patent and control this type of transformer. The time on Planet Earth is 15 minutes before midnight; there is no time left to waste. Free-energy technology is not meant to be controlled by vain and greedy parasites who wish to use a gift from God to exploit their fellow man. Free-energy technology represents a spiritual transition of the human race. Free-energy is not meant to be owned, period!
PS - I see that ION has started a thread on the Paul Jensen transformer - thanks, ION! And thank you, Fred! O0
Hi Ion,
Yes, thanks for creating an independent thread for UDT type projects. I'll post here only on the meta- issues of 'what types of devices to focus on?' and subjects like that-- as it was originally intended. I did actually have a master list at one point, but it would probably need to be updated now, if I can even find it. In truth, at the risk of sounding arrogant, it would be easier for people to just put forth ideas and I can tell them if there is sufficient literature to support research in that area. (Knowing full well that literature can be wrong!)
To keep my own tendency to scatter too many ideas in check, I'm only going to put forth information in three threads right now, the two overunity areas already mentioned, as well as a lot of material that I'll post in the Heat To Electricity thread. I see there is already an old Mandleshtam and Papaleksi thread that could serve as a place for overunity parametric projects, but maybe it should be renamed Parametric Devices, or another thread started with that name.
In some ways I began this initiative three years ago, when last I posted. However, at the time I was working for a company, as well as running my bookstore, and I burnt myself out trying to do too much. I've since dropped corporate activities, and am more or less retired from my store, so I have a much better chance of following through than I did last time.
Thanks for your support!
Fred
Where is "overunity" if it exists?
It is being "blacked." But, only for a time. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWEsVtZRhUA)
Disclosure is taking place, albeit it very slowly, in spite
of institutional efforts to keep it hidden.
Imagine how quiet it would be here if we were to only present actual OU devices.
Brad
Quote from: muDped on 2019.04.15, 04:39:50
Where is "overunity" if it exists?
It is being "blacked." But, only for a time. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWEsVtZRhUA)
...
As I no longer want to tire of countering crackpots like Laviolette, because it is impossible to put rational arguments against gibberish, I will quote what the skeptics say:
"LaViolette appears to be a general-issue pseudophysicist, his theories appear to be general-issue pseudoscience handwaving. He's not even particularly prolific or well-known. His attempts to explain "subquantum kinetics" appear to be limited to a three-part 1985 journal article (the journal's web page says this article has been downloaded six times since 2007) and a self-published 1994 book (the listed "publisher", Starlane Publications, operates out of LaViolette's home address and has "published" nothing but three LaViolette books.)". His theory "is a bunch of nonsensical gibberish and not actually a theory at all." "No evidence supporting it, no useful predictions that it makes. (His "predictions" are simply reanalyses of existing well-understood phenomena -- e.g., he "predicts" the Hubble red shift.)"Laviolette's theses are part of the 99.99% of absurdities taken up by the small world of free energy, to be eliminated.
Quote from: TinMan on 2019.04.15, 05:10:52
Imagine how quiet it would be here if we were to only present actual OU devices.
Brad
:)
Do we have even one post?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2019.04.15, 11:01:18
:)
Do we have even one post?
I think we discussed this OU thing many years ago F6FTL.
My belief still stands ,in that there is no such thing as OU,but more so a !yet! to be understood/discovered energy source.
We do not yet have one post showing a self running machine/device that cannot be explained using what we know today.
Brad