My question for detractors of overunity

[Bessler007]

. . .

• a.  Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.
  
• b,  There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.
  
• c. 'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments.  'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do
  

a.  Yes, there is Tom's lecture of a model.  Reminds me of my grandfather's attempt to get one of his roosters to mate with one of his pigs.  He did have his successes.  There was that litter of stillborns.  So cute with their little appendages of wings on their backs but unfortunately dead as they could be.  No flying pig.

b.  What you'd express and a jack of all trades, etc. I'd reword as having a shallow understanding of a lot of things.  Not that I'm attempting to manage you but you might consider getting a little depth of understanding or perhaps coming out of your pocket and hiring someone having that talent.

Your point:

• So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.

is one I agree with.

c.  So your only skill is an ability to manage the resources and talents of other people.  hehehe  Ever hear of the terrible two's?  Most two year olds have that ability also.


All this is a little fun with the manner you reason but in it all you've failed to come to the point.  I'll restate it:

• In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU.  Not one.  Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it.  An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality.  Reality, what an idea.

Bessler007
mib HQ

[mapsrg]

Nikola Tesla had another theory regarding energy and humanity.....basically it involved the need to increase the energy available to mankind to advance ourselves .....the industrial age advanced rapidly with new sources of energy and resulted in a population boom .We are now faced with energy constraints and the task of overcoming these....these same problems were the driving force of his endeavours....

[PolyMatrix]

"People believe what they fear to be true or what they want to be true"

In reality the proponents of FE and OU have yet to produce one single solitary example of the reason for their faith and belief in FE/OU.  Not one.  Not just the talk of a model with the vague hints of how to replicate it.  An actual model that has left the mind and talk of the believers and has been transported into reality.  Reality, what an idea.

So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?

More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here

[Bessler007]

What hasn't happened from the believers in free energy (FE) or those of over unity (OU) is not relevant to a discussion about zero point energy (ZPE).  I'm not sure why you'd want to change the subject to that.  Maybe  your grasping at straws.

•     " Zero point energy is the energy that remains after a substance is cooled to absolute zero. "   Dr. Hal Puthoff

I'd submit to you the energy required to attain those temperatures puts any application of ZPE well outside any practical application of FE or OU.

If you're aware of any OU/FE application from a patent filed 07/16/1973 (patent #3890161) for a diode array that rectifies minuscule thermal electrical noise or one filed 11/27/1985 (patent #4704622) for a transistor having negative transconductance that can perform the functions of a complementary device analogous to a p-channel transistor in silicon CMOS technology...
then by all means share some circuit with an analysis.

Those are old technologies.

If Tom or Dennis are discussing some idea for FE/OU then they are right at home with the community.  All talk.  Would you care to make a point from their discussion?  Maybe post some actual physical model that could (1) exist in reality and (2) work? 

I doubt it.


Bessler007
mib HQ

. . .
So you are dismissing patents 4704622 and 3890161 as not ZPE being transported into reality, as mentioned in his lecture?

More of a similar conversation that is occuring on this thread between Tom Valone and Dennis Bushnell, Chief Scientist at NASA here
. . .

[Bessler007]

Your topic:

• My question for detractors of overunity

was followed by a post with one quesiton in it:

• So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??

Your answer is that you can consider using any energy that exists and also you can call it what ever you want.

My question is, "when are you planning on doing that?"


Bessler007
mib HQ