Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



How to deal with those that add nothing to the forum

Started by citfta, December 31, 2015, 07:05:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Dog-One


EMJunkie

Quote from: TinselKoala on January 05, 2016, 09:10:56 PM

You have it exactly backwards. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  If something that is claimed goes against established scientific laws, appears to violate some solidly held scientific principle like Conservation of Momentum or Conservation of Energy, then the claimant needs to provide solid evidence in support of those claims. It is not the responsibility for a debunker to provide anything except to state where the claims are inconsistent with reality. If you claim that _your_ apparatus, say, is a selfrunning permanent magnet motor with no outside source of power, and you provide instructions, and then I build one and it fails to work as you claim... you can always say that I didn't do something right, or make some other "special pleading" (a technical term) as an excuse for why my replication didn't work. It is entirely the claimant's responsibility to demonstrate that it _does_ work according to the claims.  If the claimant cannot do that.... it is he who is not credible. We've seen plenty of cases of that here.


Carroll, sorry getting a little off topic...

TK, maybe the real issue is in-fact, frame of mind, and not the actual technology being presented: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - But only if you think it is Extraordinary!

I dont, I understand what is required, so do many other experimenters that have already come forward on my thread here at ou.com and also on my Private forum.

If you can grasp Electromagnetic Induction, some 184 Years old, then you will see the ONLY Law holding us back, is Lenz's Law!

What if you could use Lenz's law to actually turbo charge the Induction Process??? As it turns out, it is very easy to do!!!

Recently we have seen a good amount of "extraordinary evidence" to support that what you call "Extraordinary claims"!!! Really, it is just not a proper scientific excuse to dismiss any such claim of an inventor.

After all, how many people still didnt believe that Humans could Fly in Flying Machines after it had already been done!!!

You should read: "Never In A Million Years: A History of Hopeless Predictions"

If it is Science that you believe in, then Science cannot be dissmissed because it is not yet understood!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

AlienGrey

Chris Hi your artical on ;__
I dont, I understand what is required, so do many other experimenters that have already come forward on my thread here at ou.com and also on my Private forum.

If you can grasp Electromagnetic Induction, some 184 Years old, then you will see the ONLY Law holding us back, is Lenz's Law!

What if you could use Lenz's law to actually turbo charge the Induction Process??? As it turns out, it is very easy to do!!!

Recently we have seen a good amount of "extraordinary evidence" to support that what you call "Extraordinary claims"!!! Really, it is just not a proper scientific excuse to dismiss any such claim of an inventor.

Can you offer any more information on this Phenomena  please ? or are we talking magnets and twin coils, [ coil cw, Ne magnet,  coil ccw ] idea ?
regards AG

EMJunkie

Quote from: AlienGrey on January 09, 2016, 01:58:19 AM
Chris Hi your artical on ;__
I dont, I understand what is required, so do many other experimenters that have already come forward on my thread here at ou.com and also on my Private forum.

If you can grasp Electromagnetic Induction, some 184 Years old, then you will see the ONLY Law holding us back, is Lenz's Law!

What if you could use Lenz's law to actually turbo charge the Induction Process??? As it turns out, it is very easy to do!!!

Recently we have seen a good amount of "extraordinary evidence" to support that what you call "Extraordinary claims"!!! Really, it is just not a proper scientific excuse to dismiss any such claim of an inventor.

Can you offer any more information on this Phenomena  please ? or are we talking magnets and twin coils, [ coil cw, Ne magnet,  coil ccw ] idea ?
regards AG


AG,

This thread is not the place for the technical descussion. It is off Topic. Not fair for Carroll.

See: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

Magnets are not necessary.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org