The Grand Proverbial Goose Chase?

[hartiberlin]

@wattsup

if you don?t store the movements pf the weights in springs,
all the potential enery is lost when they have gone down
and you need the same energy and more , due to friction,
to bring them up again.

So a gravity wheel in my opinion can only work,
if you store the weight movements via springs,
so you can pull the weights up again with no
other energy input again....

or use asymmetrical centrifugal forces onto the weights
to keep the wheel
spinning...

[Humbugger]

Okay, I have removed the ban on user Humbugger,
but I hope he will not try to put down again other users
with their experiments.
Maybe he should then post more in the skeptics board over here.

Sorry, normally I put a warning on users first before I ban
somebody and I was in a personal bad mood that  day, so I did not put
the warning on him.

Regards, Stefan. ( admin)

@Stefan

Thank you for reconsidering.  I accept your apology.  I also apologize for probably adding to your "personal bad mood"; I did not intend to anger, only to stimulate introspection and thought.

I guess I must consider this episode as "a warning" now, although I am not exactly certain of what the rules are still.  Maybe to just be sure to balance my skeptical comments with kindness and give good scientific reasons and to try to find more threads where I can add positive encouragement (that has been tough for me, I admit).  It's just that I tend toward automatic skepticism where a lot of people here seem to tend toward automatic belief (or at least benefit of the doubt).

I understand that you have a balance to keep here and that it's totally reasonable for you to take the position of encouraging any and all new approaches and experiments. It is in everyone's interest that the site stays alive and growing.  Some of my comments could easily be taken as "putting down" the entire website and saying all of ou.com members are nutcase psychos.  I don't really feel that way and I apologize for putting out that sort of vibe at times.  I have my "bad days" as well. 

My strong feeling is that it's important for this website to keep some balance between welcoming and supporting all ideas and equally encouraging reasonable skepticism, as long as it is done in a constructive and educational way.  I'll try hard to not make condescending comments, but I would like to think I'm welcome to "call on the carpet" anyone making obviously false claims, erroneous measurements or incorrect math/logic conclusions in any thread.  When folks start reporting energy in volts per hour, I react!

When, as in the case of Bill Mehess, whom I tore into pretty good, the inventor openly asks for comments, it's fair game.  In Bill's case, he asked people to answer the question "Should I continue this project?".  There are many disguises of the same basic projects and not all members are adept at seeing the underlying "non-principals" at play. 

Don't you agree that some of the ideas proposed should be nipped in the bud rapidly to avoid the site getting a reputation as the host of silliness?  I've seen quite a few based on plugging off-the-shelf battery chargers into off-the-shelf inverters and hooking both to the same battery bank to get "over-unity". 

Or using a little low-power motor to run a big high-power generator and closing the loop.  Or gearing up or down.  Someone should point out to these folks, right away, that these approaches are just not worthy of physical experiment...especially not over and over and over again!  Don't you think so? 

I suppose what is obvious to some is a mystery to others and I suppose it is arrogant of me to dismiss anything but, after all, we are here to learn what works. One of the only ways we have, given the lack of well-documented and validated reproducible approaches available, is by the process of elimination.  How many times must we build and test a square wheel to determine that it is not a workable approach?  I would think only once if there is a true world wide forum for knowledge involved!

Anyway...enough ranting for today.  Thank you, Stefan, for reconsidering and thanks to all who wrote posts regarding the matter.  I appreciate your concern and support and I will try to bring value and reason in any of my future activities here.

Humbugger says:  "Bah" doesn't mean I disrespect you!  It just means I don't agree!

[z_p_e]

Well,

Good to have you back

Stefan, cudos for listening.

Darren

[tinu]

Many, many thanks, Stefan!

Welcome back, Humbugger!

It seems that all of us may have a real job in free energy, thanks to EnergieLibre!!!
Check http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.0/topicseen.html. It is somehow painful to read http://www.universons.com (account needs to be created, many pages, physics in theory, equations and experiments, tricky logic etc. etc.) but the reward is almost un-imaginable.

So, Humbugger, is it possible for you to be eager to build something new and not extremely complex in power electronics and gas discharge? The universons? theory holds and this is THE free energy I was looking for. It seems absolutely real! It has all the features I was long expecting: theory (a coherent one), explanation of various facts and solution to historical puzzles, principle experiments relative easily verifiable, you name it! Last, but not least, IT IS a new source of energy, as I predicted to be necessary in one of my previous post. I?m still perplexed after couple of days of reading? It will change the whole humanity in a matter of few years, if real.

I understand there are enough physicists here. The theory of universons has, imho, some weak points but it may be the case that my understanding is not complete or the weak points I?ve seen are explainable and maybe they are already detailed elsewhere. But the already existing experimental results clearly show that the main course is on track, so any weak point must have a solution. Anyway, my intention would be to contact sooner or later Mr. Claude Poher but firstly I?d like to know if anyone is interested in deeply discussing the subject over here and eventually refining together a list of questions. I intend to discuss with Mr. Poher on my behalf, without any connection with overunity.com, not because it is something wrong with the site but because clearly Mr. Poher is trying to take advantage of the results of his life-time work so if he refuses me, maybe he will respond to someone else around here.

Please reply on the above in the dedicated thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.0/topicseen.html. (Eventually when moving into the dedicated thread, please quote some of this post to avoid me posting twice. Tx)

Tinu

P.S.
1. I hope my above-expressed position responds also to the main topic of this thread, right Sataure? It was an abrupt change indeed in chasing that proverbial goose!
2. I really like you, Old Inventor! 

[wattsup]

So all's well in Camelot. See you around the table.