I was going through the list of Free Energy prize money and noticed the Zpower Inc. $100,000 Challenge seems to be out of commission. Their web page has been down for at least several months.
http://www.zpower.net/challenge.htm
Here's a list of free energy prizes that I'm aware of.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wener.html
Does anyone know of any others besides Eric?s tiny $10k? I exchanged a dozen or more emails with Randi about his $1,000,000 prize. IMHO it's misleading. Does not Randi claim that the inventor must prove the machine breaks the laws of physics? I asked Randi what if someone proves to you and your engineers that they have a machine that generates tens of kilowatts of free energy 24/7, but several months later the science community discovers how the machine works? What if they discover the machine is getting energy from zero point or from ambient heat from the magnetic material? Would that person get the prize? I did not get a clear answer from Randi, but concluded that the machine must break the laws of physics.
And what about Jones $20,000 prize?
http://amasci.com/freenrg/jones.txt
He'll pay you $20,000 if he you'll allow him to run the machine for 5,000 hours. That?s 208 days, nearly 7 months. Is this offer still legit? Is he flexible on the time frame?
What about the Keelynet prize? I read his page but don't see any specific amount mentioned. Does anyone know how much that prize will be?
It's great to see prizes such as the $10,000,000 X Prize for the first person to make it 62 miles away from earth, but IMHO free energy is far more important.
Paul
I was in email correspondance with Eric and phoned Randi. The diode array diode patch prototype didn't make enough power to be a contender but Eric was happy to hear of it. Randi told me that he didn't deal with issues raised by the diode array somehow. The diode array dosen't make enough power to contend for the SEAS power offer of a million dollars. I The diode array needs development money up front. It seems to take as much effort to gather a prize persuing team as it does to assemble capitol from many investors. I need angels who like the diode array.
Aloha, Charlie
Why does nobody tell me these things?
http://www.seaspower.com/zprizeannounced.htm
People,
You may not believe me now but it may be at your own peril if you do not consider what I have to say to you. I have met with Greer and his alleged physicists in D.C., with the good intentions of revealing several technologies which could have lead to viable free energy technologies. These so-called physicists I found out were nothing of the sort, and could not add two plus two let alone understand anything relating to physics. I had wondered why they appeared so distant while I earnestly attemted to point out these technologies which they have supposedly have been looking for, and with the alleged intentions of releasing them to the whole world because of their concerns for all of us poor people. I took a risk of losing my life because of the information that I gave them, yet they were not who they claim to be!
In the couple of years which have past since driving across the entire country only to be set-up by Greer and his clones, I have received information from several other's who claim to have worked with Steven Greer over a period of several years in various black projects, which were funded and controlled by the same elitest group which have planned out the strategies for our wonderful New World Order, as Bush senior has coined the term. During the approximate 1 1/2 hour private conversation between Steven and myself, Greer expressed great glee in telling me about his exploits with the young Rockefeller at his very home. Mr. Greer told me of the amazing technologies which he had witnessed at the Rockefeller mansion and could barely keep silent in his boasting, while I was only eager to share the secrets which I had spent two full days driving without sleep to get to D.C. to share with him. The information I received from people who are aware of Greer's actual past, expressed total disgust for the man, and told of a completely different man then Steven Greer has claimed to be to the public. After I had shared the information which I was told that I would be killed if I ever spoke of again in a direct face to face confrontation in years previous to my meeting with Greer, the entire Greer groupies turned on me in a hostile mannor. I tried to ignore the behavior of these people as best I could, and decided that since I had spent several days driving to get there, that I would sit in on the conference which was titled "Energy and Ethics". During the conference, Steven spoke about how and when they should go about releasing these free energy technologies. I found this quite enlightening since on the air and in public, Steven had always expressed the importance of obtaining and releasing these technologies as quickly as possible. I have since learned from Steven's own lips, that he has found a legitamit free energy device which could supply energy to every home for a meger financial investment. It has been a good two years now, and Steven has been completely silent on the matter. What I have come to realize without any further doubt, is that Steven Greer and his SEAS Power organization, is nothing more than another fishing expedition set-up to keep tabs on folks like you and me. As I have said, you may not believe me now, but if you go running straight to SEAS Power with a true alternative energy technology, be prepared to learn the hard way. Remember, Eugene Mallove kept close ties with Steven Greer, and it is believed that Gene was about to blow the lid off the oil cartels can of worms. Luckily for me, the idiots that Greer had fill in for authentic physicists have no idea what they past up. Watch your backs guy's. This is not a childs game, and it is not a joke, you are playing with some powerful people in this business, and don't you forget it. The reason I am telling you this is not to frighten any of you, but it is because I do care about you, and don't want to see any more of my friends and collegues die needlessly.
http://www.stevequayle.com/dead_scientists/UpdatedDeadScientists.html
Best Regards,
Bush Wacker
Dear Bush Wacker,
Thanks for the info! Your post was perfectly timed. How strange that I was just about 5 minutes away from sending Steven Greer an email, lol. I wanted to ask him his recommendation to patenting or publishing. I've read a lot of posts that publishing's the way to go, but still nobody can answer me why not do both, publish and a quick self patent? I have not built any free energy machine yet, and don't expect to anytime soon until I finish the finalized simulation program and verify some things, but when and if that time comes then I'd like to know what to do. My first and *only* goal is to give the world the designs to free energy. If I make some $ afterwards then great, but that has zero priority in comparison. So I plan on publishing, but still am hesitant to patent. I read about the disasters of patenting, etc, but why? I read that Edison gave some medical technology away by means of only publishing. I'm told that he did not patent them. I'm still curious if he succeeded. Can companies steal the device after I publish? Also, does it matter where you publish? Someone recommended the following site as a professional means to publication, but it cost money:
http://www.researchdisclosure.com
Also the US Patent Office has a Statutory Invention Registration system, which may have similar effects:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep_e8_1100.pdf
Also I'm curious who threatened your life Bush Wacker? If you're willing, could you tell us more about this? There isn't a day that goes by that I do not think of this topic. I know how crazy governments such as China are. They would kidnap a scientist in a heart beat if they could gain something from it. That includes terrorists organizations. If a government is willing to take such extreme actions then I know individuals are willing to do the same. Long ago I was starting a company in a very promising field. I went to a lawyer to finalize the documents. As I was leaving his office, he said, "So how are you going to deal with the local mafia?" The way he said it sent chills down my back. He was dead serious. I live in the U.S.A. BTW. Most people refuse to believe that modern society is ran by such sick greedy people who have no spiritual beliefs. As far as they're concerned, people are just a conglomeration of atoms-- nothing more, nothing less. This lawyer warned me that people die for a whole lot less. People make filthy rich living from war and the inefficiencies of capitalism. Just as you've so clearly said Bush Wacker, I know that there are people in this world that would kill to eliminate global free energy.
Sometimes I wonder just how many people in the free energy community are here just to cause noise. It seems like such a cheap and legal means to suppress this technology. All they would have to do is pay some scum buckets on a monthly basis to post noise. I get emails from people all the time trying to get me to build this machine when I know darn well the machine is not legitimate. I get people desperately trying to get me to stop my research on the Magnetocaloric effect. I get people trying to talk me into making a fortune when I successfully build a free energy machine. So, if it were that easy and cheap, then why wouldn't multi trillion dollar companies not do so? After all, it's legal to pay people to post noise. I keep asking myself why they would not? The more I see of the free energy community, the more I am convinced that a great deal of the people are here just to cause noise.
BTW, I'm grateful that you spoke out Bush Wacker. No problem, your words should not scare people but rather encourage people to fight for what is right. Because of people such as yourself, yes I am more cautions, but more determined than ever.
Sincerely,
Paul
Quote from: atomiverse on April 14, 2005, 02:03:40 AM
Why does nobody tell me these things?
http://www.seaspower.com/zprizeannounced.htm
I have a question about the Z Competition.
It states you must own the device, or legally control it. That sounds like it immediately prohibits the inventor from freely publishing the exact build designs of the free energy machine. I have a HUGE problem with that. There are people who claim to have the smoking gun almost on a year basis, no? You'll notice that these people have a one track mind, $. They go through the patent process, lawyers, seeking investors, manufacturers, advertising money, etc. And just how many people to date have successfully completed that process? Zero, right? I cannot express how much I caution anyone from taking the greedy route. Therefore, my question is this, is the Z Competition still valid if the inventor first publishes the entire design details? If not, then I have absolutely zero interest in this Z Competition! I have no problem with selling people a free energy machine if that person does want to build or is not able to build such a machine. Although I have a problem with preventing the world from building their own free energy machine.
Sincerely,
Paul
Quote from: atomiverse on April 14, 2005, 02:03:40 AM
Why does nobody tell me these things?
http://www.seaspower.com/zprizeannounced.htm
I just received an email from "SEAS Info" info@seaspower.com confirming that the Z Competition is no longer valid. The Technical assistant for seaspower.com referred me to:
http://www.seaspower.com/technologycriteria.htm
It seems they're still searching for people who have such a machine but the one million dollar prize is no longer valid.
Paul
Kysmett and Paul,
I can already tell that you are both just regular guy's who are sincere about what you say. Again, you can send me a phone # or e-mail address where we can either speak directly, or by e-mail if you prefer. One thing I want you to know though, is that I have been and still remain under tight surveillance by Homeland Security agent's. I have met one in person already, and believe that he is on our side. I have met many ex-CIA, NSA, DoD, and other agents throughout the years, and most of them are just regular patriotic citizen's like you and I. There are as many or more of these guy's who are very concerned about the same things that we are, and it is a good thing to have them on our side. I just want you to know before hand. Send me a note at JDEnterprizes@mailblocks.com and we can talk okay?
Cheers,
Bush Wacker
Dear Bush Wacker,
That is interesting. I've never had the pleasure of meeting such people, or at least was not aware of it. I've always grouped them into a single category as more materialistic people. I'll send you an email, but perhaps for this group, maybe you could provide what the basic mentality of these people are. I mean, do you they want global free energy? If not, then could it be because they don't want terrorist or other countries to have such technology? Are they concerned that an immediate introduction of free energy machines will rip our society to pieces? Are they concerned that if everyone had unlimited free energy that global warming would become are biggest problem? What other reasons do they have?
Global warming:
Are these people aware that some scientists / inventors are more responsible? The research I am working on solves all of the above with the exception of capitalism. Actually IMHO it will force capitalism to evolve to a more natural and efficient state. I refer to it as Energy Mover. The research predicts that ambient heat energy from magnetic materials via the Magnetocaloric effect will move to destination source. So if a hair dryer or TV is plugged into the device, then energy is moved from the magnetic material to the TV. Nearly 100.000% of the energy from most appliances heat up the air and surrounding environment. The end results in the magnetic material being cold and the appliance being hot. If the TV generates 200 watts of heat then 200 watts of heat will be sucked out of the device. This is great for global warming since such technology would not heat up nor cool down the environment in totality. There are a few exceptions. For example, if somebody created a gizmo that shot pure energy out into outer space. Actually this may be a good thing since it might help cancel out some of the heat given off by billions of human beings, cigarette smokers, etc. :-)
Technology:
Additionally, my research does not reveal any new technology. It's simple classical physics. There is no breakthrough in physics theories. It is based upon the Magnetocaloric effect which was discovered in 1881. The Magnetocaloric effect is just now starting to take off in deep freeze chillers. The only thing is the science community is not aware that if you rewire a high permeable transformer core and apply a customized pulse signal then you can permanently extract the heat from the material. Of course this is only as predicted by my simulation programs. We'll have to see if it works in about 10 months.
Capitalism:
As far as society collapsing ... that is the inevitable and due to the inefficiencies of capitalism. In Japan robotics are beginning to take over a great deal of jobs. Soon the common robot will be capable of handling every task. A lot of grocery stores out here have the automatic teller. It's great I think. You just walk up to the machine, place your groceries on the stand, and pay. The computer handles everything. The last company I worked for was selling an artificial secretary. At the time it wasn't perfect, but it worked good enough. Now that same technology is so advanced that it's nearly flawless. It answers the phones, redirects, etc. It understands anyone's voice. You just tell it who you want to talk to and it understands. So capitalism must soon evolve.
Sincerely,
Paul
I have known of SEAS power a long time. First I reached Dr. Ted Loder who was the admin secretary who told me that my device did not qualify for their development because it makes too little power. I believe that this low power result is still scientifically revolutionary because it was created in a stirred inert liquid bath with no temperature gradient. I believe the diode array could meet the other important condition that SEAS power uses to select acceptible prospects, that three labs independently confirm claims of energy production by superior processes.[my expression]. Therefore, I would like to negotiate special arrangements with SEAS to accomodate excellent reproducibility and low power output. I tried to meet Dr. Steven Greer when he passed through one of Maui's general airports in ~1998 but failed. I flew to The people's conference on free energy [approx title] in Portland OR late September '04. My impression was that the people hosting the conference to individually different degrees want to regulate the release and schedule the application of any extremely cheap energy device. I don't think much of that is needed. I met Dr. Greer at this conference and felt that he was dedicated to finding, developing, and promoting superior energy sources. I further felt that his colleagues respected him for this. Last I heard, SEAS would get the million dollar payment to bestow on a superior energy machine inventor if the machine impressed a wide audience including the backers of SEAS power and was (perhaps non exclusively) licensed to SEAS power. SEAS also offered to help protect eligible inventors from people of ill will. To me, these terms are generous, though they not helpful now during prototype development when money is needed, an outcome realistically short of fairy tale living happily ever after wonderful.
Aloha, Charlie
When I was sitting in on the Energy and Ethics conference a few years ago, Steven Greer was not worried about finding any more free energy technologies/devices. He focused on when they should release what they already had to the world. If this doesn't sound opposite of what he has been preaching on the air and in public well, I don't know how to make it more clear, that SEAS Power and the Greer people are only another watchdog group who are trying to manage all the people with genuine technologies. I've run into this many times throughout the last 30+ years. How and why do you think we are no further along then we were 30 years ago? You all do what you want, you are going to anyway. I just thought I'd save you the grief of finding out the hard way. I've been around these spook types most of my life, I know how they work and mark my words if you like, but they already have at least several viable free energy technologies which would revolutionize the world but they are controlling it all. This is not the group that people think they are! Call me paranoid or whatever floats your boat guy's, but the reason I'm here is because my life has been ruined by these kinds of people, if you can even call them people/human. I am speaking to deaf ear's once again. So what the he__ else is new today!
Bye guy's and good luck!
Bush Wacker
I'm trying to be prepared when or if I succeed in a FE machine. I think this preparation could be very helpful to other people. Someone emailed me the following interesting advice. I was wondering what everyone thought of it:
+++++++++++
Patenting takes a lot of money and a lot of time, and will be seen "first" by the wolves in the US Patent Office. I would not make patent my first step, if it were me.
I would publish and fully document the fact that I had "prior art". I would do a number of things to establish the date of origination, such as certified mail to myself, with enclosed documents notarizes. Note that YahooGroups listings are date stamped and are not editable. Note that www.archive.org is a true historic snapshot that usually takes about 6 months before the archive shows up.
Then I would probably wait as long as possible (11.5 months -12 months) to "provisional" file for patent, which would then give me yet another year to file officially. That would give me two years from the time of my "prior art" date before I make the final patent filing.
Meanwhile I would open source like crazy and try and develop the technology as far and wide as possible, with input from people all over the planet.
In my "open sourcing" documentation, I would have a prominent link to the "prior art" document that establishes my intellectual rights, and would require that any projects that spring from the original make reference to that document.
+++++++++++
Hi Paul:
Your advice re:patenting is quite surprising, though if well-founded, encouraging. I was under the impression once a thing was on the internet and unpatented, that it was gone.
So, you make your prior art device, which in my experience can be over-scale or under-scale, and then you send yourself some SASE's and find someone to sign your notebook or get it notarized, etc.,
These next two parts I barely follow -- you have one year to improve the thing and this CAN include talking about how the bearings burn afetr five miutes running, etc., on public forums like Yahoo, before you MUST file your patent.
What you wisely suggest is that we THEN use the super-cheap "Provisional" patent form, after eleven months of dickering with the invention in discussions as well as getting up to our elbows in gimbals and whatzits. And THEN we continue to talk about the invention for a year, hoping to solve the bearing problem, or whatever?
I think we should copy this stuff to a "PROVISIONAL PATENTING FOR DUMMIES" thread.
Here is another reply from a person on patents, publishing, and trademarks:
+++++++++++
>Meanwhile I would open source like crazy and try and develop the
>technology as far and wide as possible, with input from people all over
>the planet.
>In my "open sourcing" documentation, I would have a prominent link to
>the "prior art" document that establishes my intellectual rights, and
>would require that any projects that spring from the original make
>reference to that document.
You cannot put such restrictions on documentation, unless you can
enforce them with a patent, copyright, or licensing restriction.
Licensing restrictions (I consider non-disclosure agreements to be
a subset of these in this context) can be applied only if there is
a license and some reason why people NEED a license (like copyright).
Copyright protects the form of idea, not the idea itself, so a
project could spring from your ideas and there'd be no way to enforce
a requirement to reference your document. If you aren't a jerk
about it, many will honor the request anyway, but you can't enforce
it.
Patents, which are probably the best approach to keeping control
of the idea and not letting someone else patent it, are expensive.
Trademarks only protect the NAME of your invention. If your product
is HyperWeasel, you may be able to prevent the project to re-implement
your idea with a freer license from calling itself FreeHyperWeasel,
but trademark alone won't prevent them from copying the product.
+++++++++++
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_frm/thread/cad68b3827840669/653d533e0c138e86#653d533e0c138e86
Patent laws are different in different countries. United States patent law allows you one year to file from the time you first puplicly disclose your invention. European patent law does not allow for disclosure before filing. As soon as you publish your idea or offer it for sale you loose any rights to patent in European countries. The US ia the only country that gives you the one year grace period.
In the US only the inventor may get a patent. In other countries the first person to file gets a patent.
This is my 'Plan'...
A] First get something that works!!!
B] Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity.
C] Define the principle or the reason why it works!
D] Design a simple cheap working POP (proof of principle) sample model.
F] Build as many of these models as money/time/reasoning suggest.
G] Plan Ad campaign, including literature, web space, documentation, etc.
H] Write patent applications for most major countries.
I] Prepare a list of names, addresses of who is to receive what.
J] Always continue research into increasing power output and alternate designs.
K] Load up on liability and life insurance.
L] When all is prepared, file patents, upload web site, mail plans, ship models, etc. Hit the media hard! Make a sensation! Be on the evening news worldwide.
Do what needs to be done to keep those in power from suppressing your invention. It is much harder to put the genie back into the bottle after everyone has seen it. They move slow. You must move fast. The window of opportunity is between when the Patent Office receives your application and when someone reviewing it realizes what your invention really does.
Just my humble opinion.
Jim_Mich
Dear Jim,
That is terrific! It's nice to see someone with some details.
For me, step A must be the smoking gun. That is, a machine that runs by itself, self sustaining, forever or until it breaks. So the machine must recirculates some of its excess output energy back into the input.
I really like your step B, "Take steps to insure the idea survives in case of calamity." I would love to patent such a device if and when that time comes but if I am lacking step B then I cannot take the chance of something happening to me. Therefore, at present I am trying to work on step B, and of course step A. :-) In other words, if I don't complete step B before step A, then I'll be force to publish rather than patent. For me patent is merely to keep the device free and for the public-- for controlling purposes. Someone emailed me that if the Internet were not patented that it would no exist. I guess it's important to control such technology. A few weeks ago I was totally against patenting. As far as Trademark, all the experts are saying the same thing that it will not protect the device itself, just the name, which makes sense. So actually I think step A & B should be the first step.
Could you go into more details on step B. Let's say that as far as you're concerned you could have the smoking gun in about one week time. Would you find a group of people who would agree to keep your invention a secret unless you die or disappear? Would you ask them to sign an agreement? I think step B is one of the most important steps and should be well prepared in advance.
Step H is a big if more me. It sounds very costly to patent for numerous countries. In the U.S we have the "Provisional patent application (PPA)." For $100 you can get a patent overnight. In a book review for "Patent Pending In 24 Hours" it says ->
"As soon as you file a provisional patent application (PPA) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, you establish an effective filing date for your invention ? and you can use the term 'patent pending' on it. Best of all, you'll establish proof of your claim and not pay for a full patent until you figure out whether your invention is worth the cost. With Patent Pending in 24 Hours, you'll have all the forms and information you need to get the job done! This book will help you: *evaluate the seven hurdles to patentability *write a plain-English provisional patent application *prepare informal drawings of your invention *conduct a basic patent search on the Internet *understand patent law principles *complete all forms required by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office *file your application using U.S. Express mail Patent Pending in 24 Hours also includes a nondisclosure agreement, patent assignment, prototype-maker agreement and joint-ownership agreement to help you preserve your rights when showing or selling your invention."
Does Europe have something similar to PPA? What about in Asia? I like the 24-hour idea because I don't want to spend much time on this process, initially.
Step I is another one that can be prepared in advance.
Step K is hilarious! Very good idea. ;-)
I love step L. I am also a firm believer that you must hit the media HARD! The world is not going to come begging at the inventors doorstep. Like every business, it's the person that makes the difference, not the invention. We need to be like Donald Trump and put 110% effort.
Kind regards,
Paul
I think the very best book about patents is 'Patent It Yourself' by Patent Attorny David Pressman, published by Nolo Press. The author covers everything and includes blank forms in the back of the book. This is a MUST read for anyone with an invention or idea!
Jim
http://www.patenthunter.com/
I "accidentally" found this program.
Great program for patent search, makes a nice pdf-file from the results.
I have something to contribute on the concept of an "X Prize" for a free energy breakthrough, but since this is also my first post here, I should probably just start by saying hello to everyone!
I love the idea of a MAJOR prize for a free energy breakthrough with a well-defined criterion (as was defined for the X Prize).? It's my opinion that you don't need $10 Million US to offer a $10 Million prize.? Game shows that give away $1 Million have insurance policies against someone winning a really big prize.? For example, if only one player out of 100 wins a major prize with an average value of $500K, and in one month, the program cycles X number of players, the insurance company can write a policy for that.
Now, we're obviously talking about variables that are harder to pin down in this case, but I still think that this could be done.? Give a window of time (a deadline), define the terms for a "hit," and get some input from known scientists (here is one time where skepticism works in FAVOR of free energy, by keeping the costs down!) and there will probably be an insurance company that will underwrite the prize.? The disadvantage is that money has to be paid out either way.? The advantage is that maybe $500,000 US could fund a $10 Million US prize for 10 years!? (I am guessing about the amount, of course)
No luck scaring up heroes to fund new energy ideas. Sorry.
Incidentally, there are some competitions for kids listed on Google. But I haven't seen anything for grown-ups.
Edgar always struck me as a place to find folks interested in business and enterprise, though I've only made contacts with strangers through the D&B Billion Dollar Directory and then, only with a finished product that had a potential market in the millions.
I've posted some other stuff at answers.google.com
I am an independent technology CEO recruiter out of Vancouver Canada, and have worked with the BC Technology Industries Association for several years. I have a Cold Fusion company that is looking for a CEO in the $120 - $200K a year range with experience in the SEC filings. The firm requires the individual to move to Salt Lake City for the work required. The company is a new technology utilizing Quantum Physics. Only serious requests.
We are also looking for firms with experience in selling to Oil Refinery firms for a new Nanotechnology project.
Contact energy_ceos@yahoo.com
If you do not have a resume, please summarize your experience. We understand that some higher level candidates may only have BIOs.
We apperceive that as anon as you broadcast your abstraction or action it for auction you apart any rights to apparent in European countries. The US ia the alone country that gives you the one year adroitness period.
________________
Dental insurance plans (http://www.goldenrule.com/health/dental.shtml)
Perpetual motion is not a machine it's a process, an integration of two 100 year old processes that are used every day but have never been put together. What you ask for can be achieved through an integration of old technologies into a new process that will cut the cost of power generation by 80 % over present methods. Energy is never created or destroyed; it just transfers from one state to another this statement is what allows perpetual motion. Changing the process of how electricity is produced will give us a system made up of off- the- shelf parts that come with their own warranty; this makes it ready for commercial use now, it's fully scalable up or down and it fits all electrical power applications. . If I let anyone know how this works, I lose all of my rights to the process. So if you would like to find out how perpetual motion works I will need you to sing an NDA first then I will send you a copy of the white paper that explain how through Quantum physics, perpetual motion is not only possible but can be done using off the shelf system. Please contact me if you are interested.
Hey vonhen,why don't u build the thing and enter it into x-prize.20mil up 4 grabs
vonhen
Please consider this a contact
My Email Chetkremens@gmail.com
Respectfully
Chet
Did you notice what it says on the home page of this forum? It says this:
QuoteWelcome to OverUnity.com
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum
(emphasis mine)
:P
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 25, 2014, 11:25:41 PM
Did you notice what it says on the home page of this forum? It says this:
(emphasis mine)
:P
So, you are saying that an inventor who is consumed by altruism and is devoid of personal greed, can be assured that there is a herd of eager, totally reliable, saints who have wealth (to pay for development costs, and cost of building factories) and are fidgeting frantically to get a workable FE OU device concept, and, who will without fail, survive the threats and briberies of the Energy Establishment, and will quickly convey FE to the poorest humans and then soon to every man?
Who are they? Why haven't we heard about these capable, reliable, wealthy, but, completely inept-at-inventing, superheroes in a widespread, everyday way?
Where were they when Bessler was indeed eager to give his invention to somebody powerful enough to take the torch and carry it to all of humanity?
Where were they when Tesla needed financial support to finish his plan to give free energy to all of humanity?
Please explain why it is advantageous to all of humanity for an altruistic inventor to seriously try to give away and lose all control of his once-in-the-human-race chance to raise all humanity out of poverty.
Explain, in satisfactory detail, why OPEN SOURCE give-away is better than an individual trying to do it, with the ultimate goal being to greatly help all humanity.
I find your response to raise more questions than it answers, if indeed, it can be imagined to answer any.
CANGAS 100
Quote from: vonhen on November 25, 2014, 02:23:06 PM
Perpetual motion is not a machine it's a process, an integration of two 100 year old processes that are used every day but have never been put together. What you ask for can be achieved through an integration of old technologies into a new process that will cut the cost of power generation by 80 % over present methods. Energy is never created or destroyed; it just transfers from one state to another this statement is what allows perpetual motion. Changing the process of how electricity is produced will give us a system made up of off- the- shelf parts that come with their own warranty; this makes it ready for commercial use now, it's fully scalable up or down and it fits all electrical power applications. . If I let anyone know how this works, I lose all of my rights to the process. So if you would like to find out how perpetual motion works I will need you to sing an NDA first then I will send you a copy of the white paper that explain how through Quantum physics, perpetual motion is not only possible but can be done using off the shelf system. Please contact me if you are interested.
The First Law of Energy does not preclude perpetual motion machines of the second kind. The Second Law of Energy does. In order to overcome the Second Law, you must prove that you have an exception: You must have a working prototype. Do you have a working prototype?
Quote from: vonhen on November 25, 2014, 02:23:06 PM
Energy is never created or destroyed; it just transfers from one state to another this statement is what allows perpetual motion.
Really :-\
So all matter that energy comes from was created how?-->it didnt just pop up one day,and it hasnt always existed-->,so how dose energetic matter exist if it wasnt created :o
Quote from: CANGAS on November 26, 2014, 02:42:36 AM
So, you are saying that an inventor who is consumed by altruism and is devoid of personal greed, can be assured that there is a herd of eager, totally reliable, saints who have wealth (to pay for development costs, and cost of building factories) and are fidgeting frantically to get a workable FE OU device concept, and, who will without fail, survive the threats and briberies of the Energy Establishment, and will quickly convey FE to the poorest humans and then soon to every man?
Do you have some problem with reading comprehension? This website is supposed to be an OPEN SOURCE place for discussion and development of ideas, not some place for secrecy, NDAs and stuff like that.
Quote
Who are they? Why haven't we heard about these capable, reliable, wealthy, but, completely inept-at-inventing, superheroes in a widespread, everyday way?
Maybe because you haven't been paying attention. There are many such organizations and individuals, although your silly characterization of them as "inept-at-inventing superheroes" is an obvious flail. Even Stefan our host has offered a prize for real evidence of OU, and I can think of six more without even straining or Googling. Show me a device that passes my own tests and I can arrange introductions to two organizations that are capable, reliable, offer fully lawyered-up intellectual property protection to the inventor and even substantial support just for good ideas, much less working models, and if a working model should show up, nearly unlimited funding from that point on.
Quote
Where were they when Bessler was indeed eager to give his invention to somebody powerful enough to take the torch and carry it to all of humanity?
Maybe they were too smart to be taken in by the obvious conman Bessler.
Quote
Where were they when Tesla needed financial support to finish his plan to give free energy to all of humanity?
Tesla got plenty of financial support but was struggling against greedy people who wanted to profit from his work, keep it secret, and so on. He also wasn't a particularly good businessman. Speculations about "His plan to give free energy" when no such plan existed is kind of silly, don't you think?
Quote
Please explain why it is advantageous to all of humanity for an altruistic inventor to seriously try to give away and lose all control of his once-in-the-human-race chance to raise all humanity out of poverty.
Explain, in satisfactory detail, why OPEN SOURCE give-away is better than an individual trying to do it, with the ultimate goal being to greatly help all humanity.
I find your response to raise more questions than it answers, if indeed, it can be imagined to answer any.
CANGAS 100
I don't need to explain anything to you, other than the fact that you don't seem to respect the stated goals of THIS website.
You really need to learn the first law of physics
The second law only applies to heat!
@tinselkoala...you know 6 more prizes? Where?
@vonhen so what is yours,violation of 2nd or 1st?
nether Its not a machine it's a process
Show me a device that passes my own tests and I can arrange introductions to two organizations that are capable, reliable, offer fully lawyered-up intellectual property protection to the inventor and even substantial support just for good ideas, much less working models, and if a working model should show up, nearly unlimited funding from that point on.
It's not a machine it's a process. If this is for real then contact me at vonhen@yahoo.com. I'll need an NDA and a lot of other insurance to be able to move forward. I have no problem proving how this works and does not violate the laws of physics. One of the government's top reviewers has already reviewed the white paper and agrees that what a say is true. So now it's just a matter of getting paid and if you can do that I'll make you richer than Bill Gates.
If it doesn't violate allowed physics then its just a natural harvester right? You got a efficiency booster of sorts in mind mr vonhen?
@tinselkoala...unlimited funding?
Quote from: profitis on November 26, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
@tinselkoala...you know 6 more prizes? Where?
This forum (3500 Euros last time I checked)
Eric Krieg (10,000 dollars)
X-prize (20 million dollars)
Puthoff's One Watt challenge (funds for development and deployment)
AERO (Canadian corp, 200,000 dollars)
Greer's STAR (100,000 dollars)
CleanTechOpen (200,000 dollars awarded yearly)
Finland's Millennium Technology Prize (one million Euro, awarded every two years)
and more...
Now please go and do your own homework for a change.
Quote from: profitis on November 26, 2014, 08:00:43 PM
@tinselkoala...unlimited funding?
Do you just edit out words to change meanings deliberately, or is it something you do on purpose?
Quote from: vonhen on November 26, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
Quote from: TKShow me a device that passes my own tests and I can arrange introductions to two organizations that are capable, reliable, offer fully lawyered-up intellectual property protection to the inventor and even substantial support just for good ideas, much less working models, and if a working model should show up, nearly unlimited funding from that point on.
It's not a machine it's a process. If this is for real then contact me at vonhen@yahoo.com. I'll need an NDA and a lot of other insurance to be able to move forward. I have no problem proving how this works and does not violate the laws of physics. One of the government's top reviewers has already reviewed the white paper and agrees that what a say is true. So now it's just a matter of getting paid and if you can do that I'll make you richer than Bill Gates.
Sorry, that's not how it works. Did you not read the post of mine that you quote? YOU convince ME first that I'm not going to embarrass myself by hooking you up, then I give you an introduction to the principals, with my endorsement, which actually counts for something. THEN, I am out of the picture, you and they can NDA yourselves silly. Or you can just contact any of the people or agencies I listed above yourself. If you want me to sign any NDA, then you are hiring me and you will of course pay me my regular daily consulting fee for my examination of your claims. I am not an amateur.
This forum is an OPEN SOURCE forum and anything we talk about here is NOT SECRET, and here I work for free, or rather at my own expense. Of course I accept certain donations, no-strings-attached, and I have also sent people things I've built, for free, no strings attached. OPEN SOURCE.
And I think that what most people mean by "overunity" and "Free Energy" _does_ violate known laws of physics, such as 2LoT or Conservation of Momentum or such, so when you say your process doesn't, I am immediately thinking that you aren't really conforming to the usual definitions of those terms. For example, some kind of tidal power generator might be "free" in terms of the cost of the energy extracted from tides or ocean waves, and it doesn't violate known physical laws, but it also isn't "overunity" or "free energy" in the sense that this forum and most of the people here actually mean. However it still might qualify for one or two of the prizes and awards I listed above.
Quote from: vonhen on November 26, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
It's not a machine it's a process. If this is for real then contact me at vonhen@yahoo.com. I'll need an NDA and a lot of other insurance to be able to move forward.
The first day vonhen posted I PM him and asked to send me the NDA. However, I used an old email address to see what I would receive.
Have a look at the attache. This came in the IN box (not spam box) and is the only thing I received.
I do know this is not from Yahoo and I obviously I did not click the link.
Luc
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2014, 11:36:43 AM
Do you have some problem with reading comprehension? This website is supposed to be an OPEN SOURCE place for discussion and development of ideas, not some place for secrecy, NDAs and stuff like that.
Maybe because you haven't been paying attention. There are many such organizations and individuals, although your silly characterization of them as "inept-at-inventing superheroes" is an obvious flail. Even Stefan our host has offered a prize for real evidence of OU, and I can think of six more without even straining or Googling. Show me a device that passes my own tests and I can arrange introductions to two organizations that are capable, reliable, offer fully lawyered-up intellectual property protection to the inventor and even substantial support just for good ideas, much less working models, and if a working model should show up, nearly unlimited funding from that point on. Maybe they were too smart to be taken in by the obvious conman Bessler. Tesla got plenty of financial support but was struggling against greedy people who wanted to profit from his work, keep it secret, and so on. He also wasn't a particularly good businessman. Speculations about "His plan to give free energy" when no such plan existed is kind of silly, don't you think?
I don't need to explain anything to you, other than the fact that you don't seem to respect the stated goals of THIS website.
LOL! (Laughing Out Loud!)
ROFL! (Rolling On the Floor Laughing!)
LMA! (Laughing My Ass Off!)
Tink, I asked you QUESTIONS. Do you suffer a severe comprehension problem in which you do not know the difference between a QUESTION and a STATEMENT? Apparently YES.
I have made no argument against any goal of this site, but, in your delirium you have taken my innocent questions, refused to honestly answer them, and have dishonestly perverted them into delusional mis-statements.
You have given us undeniable grounds upon which to judge your (lack of) ability to honestly and fairly assess the righteous motives and honest communication presented to you.
By the way, you still have one more chance to give HONEST answers to my questions and comments.
CANGAS 101
@tinselkoala,,,thanks man,you mentioned quite a few that I wasn't aware of despite my own searches(I do my own homework too btw) So are your doors open to karpen piles of say 1ma/cm2 in perpetual bursts to infinity ie can you make me rich with a prototype of sorts like this
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2014, 08:33:44 PM
It's not a machine it's a process. If this is for real then contact me at vonhen@yahoo.com. I'll need an NDA and a lot of other insurance to be able to move forward. I have no problem proving how this works and does not violate the laws of physics. One of the government's top reviewers has already reviewed the white paper and agrees that what a say is true. So now it's just a matter of getting paid and if you can do that I'll make you richer than Bill Gates.
Sorry, that's not how it works. Did you not read the post of mine that you quote? YOU convince ME first that I'm not going to embarrass myself by hooking you up, then I give you an introduction to the principals, with my endorsement, which actually counts for something. THEN, I am out of the picture, you and they can NDA yourselves silly. Or you can just contact any of the people or agencies I listed above yourself. If you want me to sign any NDA, then you are hiring me and you will of course pay me my regular daily consulting fee for my examination of your claims. I am not an amateur.
This forum is an OPEN SOURCE forum and anything we talk about here is NOT SECRET, and here I work for free, or rather at my own expense. Of course I accept certain donations, no-strings-attached, and I have also sent people things I've built, for free, no strings attached. OPEN SOURCE.
And I think that what most people mean by "overunity" and "Free Energy" _does_ violate known laws of physics, such as 2LoT or Conservation of Momentum or such, so when you say your process doesn't, I am immediately thinking that you aren't really conforming to the usual definitions of those terms. For example, some kind of tidal power generator might be "free" in terms of the cost of the energy extracted from tides or ocean waves, and it doesn't violate known physical laws, but it also isn't "overunity" or "free energy" in the sense that this forum and most of the people here actually mean. However it still might qualify for one or two of the prizes and awards I listed above.
Tink, you seem to be totally unaware that Patent System is intrinsically Open Source. Explain it to you? I have limited patience, and, you obviously have limited comprehension. OK, I will try.
The principle of the Patent System is that the inventor, in his APPLICATION, fully explains and spills his guts, about his lovely invention. Supposedly perfectly Open Source, supposedly no secret sauce recipe held back. Are you keeping up OK?
In the Patent System there is a 20 year time delay before anybody and everybody can freely use the invention concept to any end they wish. But after those 20 years anybody and everybody can do absolutely anything they feel like trying to do with the invention. 20 years. Only 20 little years.
It has been a 100 years and we still don't enjoy the benefits of the Tesla free energy concepts. Most of the concepts were patented, and, most of them were published (if you are industrious enough to look).
So what difference does it make if an inventor chooses to patent, or, chooses to publish and give away immediately via "OPEN SOURCE"?
Why are you or anybody else so knee-jerk frantic about an inventor giving it away per se?
CANGAS 102
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 26, 2014, 08:33:44 PM
It's not a machine it's a process. If this is for real then contact me at vonhen@yahoo.com. I'll need an NDA and a lot of other insurance to be able to move forward. I have no problem proving how this works and does not violate the laws of physics. One of the government's top reviewers has already reviewed the white paper and agrees that what a say is true. So now it's just a matter of getting paid and if you can do that I'll make you richer than Bill Gates.
Sorry, that's not how it works. Did you not read the post of mine that you quote? YOU convince ME first that I'm not going to embarrass myself by hooking you up, then I give you an introduction to the principals, with my endorsement, which actually counts for something. THEN, I am out of the picture, you and they can NDA yourselves silly. Or you can just contact any of the people or agencies I listed above yourself. If you want me to sign any NDA, then you are hiring me and you will of course pay me my regular daily consulting fee for my examination of your claims. I am not an amateur.
This forum is an OPEN SOURCE forum and anything we talk about here is NOT SECRET, and here I work for free, or rather at my own expense. Of course I accept certain donations, no-strings-attached, and I have also sent people things I've built, for free, no strings attached. OPEN SOURCE.
And I think that what most people mean by "overunity" and "Free Energy" _does_ violate known laws of physics, such as 2LoT or Conservation of Momentum or such, so when you say your process doesn't, I am immediately thinking that you aren't really conforming to the usual definitions of those terms. For example, some kind of tidal power generator might be "free" in terms of the cost of the energy extracted from tides or ocean waves, and it doesn't violate known physical laws, but it also isn't "overunity" or "free energy" in the sense that this forum and most of the people here actually mean. However it still might qualify for one or two of the prizes and awards I listed above.
QuoteSorry, that's not how it works. Did you not read the post of mine that you quote? YOU convince ME first that I'm not going to embarrass myself by hooking you up, then I give you an introduction to the principals, with my endorsement, which actually counts for something. THEN, I am out of the picture, you and they can NDA yourselves silly. Or you can just contact any of the people or agencies I listed above yourself. If you want me to sign any NDA, then you are hiring me and you will of course pay me my regular daily consulting fee for my examination of your claims. I am not an amateur.
Tink, do you realize that you sound exactly like a pimp hustling his ho's?
Suppose, purely hypothetically, that I am so
smart that I have wigged out how to really do Overunity Free Energy. But, then, you guess (and hope) that I am simultaneously so
dumb that I need a pimp (like you ?) to make my case to The Man and get my party started?
Sorry, Charlie, if I'm smart enough to figure out how to do Overunity Free Energy, I also smart enough to figure out that I don't need to hook up with a con-artist pimp. The product will sell itself. The problem is not getting a pimp, I'm not sayin' you are not attractive, but, I'm sayin' that somebody like you is completely unnecessary if I really do know how to do OU.
CANGAS 103
@CANGAS.... are you sure you are able to read? I gave you answers to your "questions" which really weren't honest questions at all.
http://www.overunity.com/106/free-energy-prize-money/msg424774/#msg424774 (http://www.overunity.com/106/free-energy-prize-money/msg424774/#msg424774)
QuoteI'm sayin' that somebody like you is completely unnecessary if I really do know how to do OU.
At last... you finally got something right. Neither is this forum necessary if anyone really knows how to do OU. So what are all those claimants doing here, then? What is someone doing HERE, asking ME, or any of us, to sign an NDA for his "proven" process, or wanting to bet me that his "overunity" sphere magnet spinner is actually OU? Why haven't they gone directly to any of the organizations or individuals that I HAD TO POINT OUT?
Can you answer me that, CANASS?
Ooops, a typo. Maybe I should get some of my "hos" to proofread what I write. They have better comprehension skills than you do, and they are more polite as well.
You call me a "pimp" but you can't explain how it is that this "pimp" is willing to bend over backwards and place his reputation and credibility on the line with some very wealthy people, for nothing in return except whatever _those people_ , not the claimants, may toss me in reward-- if anything. What exactly have YOU done, other than insult people? What CAN you offer, yourself, in aid of those claimants who might think they have something but don't know the people I know?
QuoteSuppose, purely hypothetically, that I am so smart that I have wigged out how to really do Overunity Free Energy. But, then, you guess (and hope) that I am simultaneously so dumb that I need a pimp (like you ?) to make my case to The Man and get my party started?
Hey, you are the one who mentioned Bessler as if you believed he had something. Do the math.
QuoteSo what difference does it make if an inventor chooses to patent, or, chooses to publish and give away immediately via "OPEN SOURCE"?
Why are you or anybody else so knee-jerk frantic about an inventor giving it away per se?
I see you like strawman arguments in addition to your skilful use of the ad-hominem abuse. THIS WEBSITE IS AN OPEN SOURCE FORUM. Check the top page, look up the terms. If someone wants secrecy or some kind of IP protection.... what are they doing HERE?
I have no problem with people keeping secrets, or patenting, or whatever. This is supposed to be an open source forum; I have issues with people who talk secret, want people
here to sign NDAs before they "reveal" anything, etc. OPEN SOURCE. Look it up.
@cangas do you think its even worth patenting an overunity device as opposed to just dumping into markets and riding the waves with trade secrets.I guess the question really is this,can anyone really benefit from a patent in this day and age of mass theft and espionage,I'm wondering if even a giant corporation can actually benefit from a patent nowadays for longer than one or two years before altered ripoffs appear on the streets eg.the whole music industry piracy thing
To give an idea of the pressure to keep ahead with patents look how the pharmaceutical companies re-arrange a molecule or two every 6months on new drugs just in order to stay ahead of competitors.this is one example of how the need to be 'exclusive' can be dangerous to the public. re-arranging such drugs can have drasticly different effects from one person to the next.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 27, 2014, 04:27:19 AM
@CANGAS.... are you sure you are able to read? I gave you answers to your "questions" which really weren't honest questions at all.
http://www.overunity.com/106/free-energy-prize-money/msg424774/#msg424774 (http://www.overunity.com/106/free-energy-prize-money/msg424774/#msg424774)
At last... you finally got something right. Neither is this forum necessary if anyone really knows how to do OU. So what are all those claimants doing here, then? What is someone doing HERE, asking ME, or any of us, to sign an NDA for his "proven" process, or wanting to bet me that his "overunity" sphere magnet spinner is actually OU? Why haven't they gone directly to any of the organizations or individuals that I HAD TO POINT OUT?
Can you answer me that, CANASS?
Ooops, a typo. Maybe I should get some of my "hos" to proofread what I write. They have better comprehension skills than you do, and they are more polite as well.
You call me a "pimp" but you can't explain how it is that this "pimp" is willing to bend over backwards and place his reputation and credibility on the line with some very wealthy people, for nothing in return except whatever _those people_ , not the claimants, may toss me in reward-- if anything. What exactly have YOU done, other than insult people? What CAN you offer, yourself, in aid of those claimants who might think they have something but don't know the people I know?
Hey, you are the one who mentioned Bessler as if you believed he had something. Do the math.
I see you like strawman arguments in addition to your skilful use of the ad-hominem abuse. THIS WEBSITE IS AN OPEN SOURCE FORUM. Check the top page, look up the terms. If someone wants secrecy or some kind of IP protection.... what are they doing HERE?
I have no problem with people keeping secrets, or patenting, or whatever. This is supposed to be an open source forum; I have issues with people who talk secret, want people here to sign NDAs before they "reveal" anything, etc. OPEN SOURCE. Look it up.
QuoteAt last... you finally got something right. Neither is this forum necessary if anyone really knows how to do OU. So what are all those claimants doing here, then? What is someone doing HERE, asking ME, or any of us, to sign an NDA for his "proven" process, or wanting to bet me that his "overunity" sphere magnet spinner is actually OU? Why haven't they gone directly to any of the organizations or individuals that I HAD TO POINT OUT?
Tink, you are really a case. I can barely figure out what your posts mean, or, what your intentions are, because you are the poster child for scatter brain miscommunication syndrome.
What the Hell are you talking about "those claimants" for in connection with me? In your delusional state do you envision that all of your detractors are in a conspiracy just for the one purpose of destroying your personal hubris? Not so. I know little about you in particular and care less. I happen to have a differing opinion than you about the best way to use some superlative invention for the quickest benefit for all of humanity, STARTING WITH THOSE WHO URGENTLY NEED THE MOST HELP FIRST.
CANGAS is not asking you or anybody to sign an NDA or anything else. In which of your deleriums did you get that?
CANGAS has not needed you to point out anything. CANGAS has already figured out what to do and who to contact (and, pretty much, who to NOT contact) when and if an inventor discovers a genuine OU Free Energy device or process.
QuoteAt last... you finally got something right. Neither is this forum necessary if anyone really knows how to do OU. So what are all those claimants doing here, then? What is someone doing HERE, asking ME, or any of us, to sign an NDA for his "proven" process, or wanting to bet me that his "overunity" sphere magnet spinner is actually OU? Why haven't they gone directly to any of the organizations or individuals that I HAD TO POINT OUT?
Oh, silly Tink. How long will somebody like me continue to tolerate your type of silliness?
A genuine OU Free Energy device will possibly be so simple and easy to understand that the nexus could be applied to 20 or 30 or more devices based on purely mechanical principles. Not being an electronics guru, I cannot guess, how many variations on a theme the Tesla concepts can generate. Would it be fair to guess 20 or 30 or more?
The majority of humanity is dog-eat-dog sinful and selfish. An lucky inventor who has primarily altruistic intentions is a lamb surrounded by hungry wolves. The lucky inventor must be the watch-man who sizes up his adversary before making his move to try to make his shot. The lucky inventor must keep up with any outburst uttered by any silly tinkerer who may have had a lucky dream in which the silly imagined that if the widget was shaped just right and moved in just the right way, then it might do OU. The true lucky inventor must patiently wait and watch to see if some silly may have dreamed of something that might work and has blabbed it. The true lucky inventor cannot take the chance that some silly might trump by blabbing prior art before the right time to publish a genuine OU device.
A genuine OU device will do colossal disruption to the Energy Establishment and the financial stability of the global economy. It will get much worse before it then gets much, much, better. A righteous and conscientious true lucky inventor is duty-bound to try to time his announcement for the right time to do the least harm before it then will do the most good.
That, silly, silly Tink, is why an inventor who hopes to discover true OU Free Energy (or may have already done so) scouts out this site even if he has figured out that his best plan is to patent rather than blatantly give it away on the front end.
Happiest Regards
CANGAS 104
To all that will listen, there is no such thing as perpetual motion machines. The word motion applies heat. The laws of thermo dynamics takes over. There is always an energy lost. There is no physical science to support the notion that a machine can create more energy than is supplied. Without physical science that support it, it does not work. There is no such thing as perpetual motion but the Physical science support nay decrees that a close loop energy transfer process works. The laws that govern this are over 300 years old and we see the practical applications of these laws are use every day. Everyone has seen these application their entire lives.
a close loop energy transfer process is only quantum physical laws. That always works. Where ever you are on this planet nay in this universe it will work. There is nothing to Patten. It is just quantum physics. The process has been used every day for the last 100 years. Anyone could go to their local hardware store and pick up the parts and in lest then 1 hour put together a free close loop energy transfer system.
If anyone out there is still interested in a free close loop energy transfer system, know that there is no money in it. The systems need to put one together have been manufacture for the last 100 years. So this is the dilemma that I find myself in. There is no way I can get paid. I have the quantum physical laws that prove the existence of a close loop energy transfer system but all I get is to be known as the person who came up with it .Right now that's not enough for me to give it to the world. To everybody that has put up prize money for a perpetual motion machine, you money is save. There is only one way free energy works , through the laws of physics and I have those laws. If someone wants the world to have this contact me and let me know what is worth to you. Yes I have the quantum physical laws and the U S government knows it, so I will get credit for being the person who figured laws out but I want more.
@vonhen you most certainly won't get credit for being the first to figure that shit out mate plenty guys onto these quantum secrets.you may or may not be first to figure out a particular design but we won't know unless you tell us a clue (-:
Quote from: profitis on November 27, 2014, 05:37:36 AM
To give an idea of the pressure to keep ahead with patents look how the pharmaceutical companies re-arrange a molecule or two every 6months on new drugs just in order to stay ahead of competitors.
Please cite an example of "changing a molecule" in a approved drug for no medical reason.
The fluorinated,brominated,chlorinated corticosteroids (anti-inflammatories) classical example mr sarkeizen.first they fluorinated the hydrocortisone skeleton,then brominated it,then chlorinated it,then re-arranged a few carbons and hydrogens,then fluorinated,brominated,chlorinated that too and are still (that was in the 60's) to this day re-arranging corticosteroids when there's at least 300 corticosteroids already to choose from on the market. all doing pretty much the same thing ie.anti-inflammatory via glucocorticoid activity.
Some people have huge over-sensitivity to some of these halogenated corticosteroids because their potency differs drasticly from one person to the next eg fluocinolone
Quote from: profitis on December 09, 2014, 12:52:25 AM
The fluorinated,brominated,chlorinated corticosteroids (anti-inflammatories) classical example
Please provide the names of three currently on-market steroid pharmaceuticals one of each fluorinated, "brominated" and chlorinated.
How about we begin with just the fluorinated species 1st @sarkeizen: triamcinolone,fludrocortisone,fluicinolone
Quote from: CANGAS on November 28, 2014, 03:52:20 AM
Tink, you are really a case. I can barely figure out what your posts mean, or, what your intentions are, because you are the poster child for scatter brain miscommunication syndrome.
What the Hell are you talking about "those claimants" for in connection with me? In your delusional state do you envision that all of your detractors are in a conspiracy just for the one purpose of destroying your personal hubris? Not so. I know little about you in particular and care less. I happen to have a differing opinion than you about the best way to use some superlative invention for the quickest benefit for all of humanity, STARTING WITH THOSE WHO URGENTLY NEED THE MOST HELP FIRST.
CANGAS is not asking you or anybody to sign an NDA or anything else. In which of your deleriums did you get that?
CANGAS has not needed you to point out anything. CANGAS has already figured out what to do and who to contact (and, pretty much, who to NOT contact) when and if an inventor discovers a genuine OU Free Energy device or process.
Oh, silly Tink. How long will somebody like me continue to tolerate your type of silliness?
A genuine OU Free Energy device will possibly be so simple and easy to understand that the nexus could be applied to 20 or 30 or more devices based on purely mechanical principles. Not being an electronics guru, I cannot guess, how many variations on a theme the Tesla concepts can generate. Would it be fair to guess 20 or 30 or more?
The majority of humanity is dog-eat-dog sinful and selfish. An lucky inventor who has primarily altruistic intentions is a lamb surrounded by hungry wolves. The lucky inventor must be the watch-man who sizes up his adversary before making his move to try to make his shot. The lucky inventor must keep up with any outburst uttered by any silly tinkerer who may have had a lucky dream in which the silly imagined that if the widget was shaped just right and moved in just the right way, then it might do OU. The true lucky inventor must patiently wait and watch to see if some silly may have dreamed of something that might work and has blabbed it. The true lucky inventor cannot take the chance that some silly might trump by blabbing prior art before the right time to publish a genuine OU device.
A genuine OU device will do colossal disruption to the Energy Establishment and the financial stability of the global economy. It will get much worse before it then gets much, much, better. A righteous and conscientious true lucky inventor is duty-bound to try to time his announcement for the right time to do the least harm before it then will do the most good.
That, silly, silly Tink, is why an inventor who hopes to discover true OU Free Energy (or may have already done so) scouts out this site even if he has figured out that his best plan is to patent rather than blatantly give it away on the front end.
Happiest Regards
CANGAS 104
"Oh, silly Tink. How long will somebody like me continue to tolerate your type of silliness? " hopefully not long, TK is the voice of reason on this forum and people like you have no place insulting other members. Please DONT tolerate it and go away!
Quote from: profitis on December 09, 2014, 03:44:28 AM
How about we begin with just the fluorinated species 1st @sarkeizen: triamcinolone,fludrocortisone,fluicinolone
But you said...
Quote from: profitis
The fluorinated,brominated,chlorinated corticosteroids (anti-inflammatories) classical example
How can these be "classical examples" of changing a molecule for no reason other than to maintain a patent. If you can't find any examples of them?
LOL.
You also misspelled one drug and made at least one classification error not to mention that you can't seem to tell the difference between a drug and a class of drugs. :-)
prove your statements to be true @sarkeizen,then we can believe you
Quote from: profitis on December 09, 2014, 12:39:39 PM
prove your statements to be true @sarkeizen,then we can believe you
Sorry you have never shown the slightest interest in supporting your own statements so you'll have to forgive me that I'm not that interested in talking to you but I'll give you a couple of hints...
triamcinolone fluocinolone fludrocortisone are the words you seem to be attempting to say. Not even one of these words contains enough information to talk about a specific drug delivery. The closest is fludrocortisone by which I'd assume you mean fludrocortisone acetate - often marketed under Florinef acetate but you could just as easily mean some other suspension. The other two words get used in several drugs and one of them could be used to refer to a class of drugs containing drugs of both names.
The idea that there's no difference in medical utility between fludrocortisone acetate and something in the triamcinolone acetonide class is laughable. Almost as funny as asserting that there's no difference in medical utility between fludrocortisone and hydrocorosone types even though there's a very small chemical difference .
Well according to wikipedia they are 3 slightly different molecules,all glucocorticoid and may all be used for eczema,asthma,arthritis.that alone tells me that they are infact differently re-arranged molecules used for exact same purposes sometimes in certain ways of delivery.you can allow your doctor to prescribe internal or external fluocinolone for your family mr sarkeizen but I sure as hell won't allow it near mine.it is too unpredictable at such potency.ive had personal experience with one fluorinated-chlorinated derivative (clobetasol acetate) for a bout of eczema and it made the rash ten times worse yet high-strength(prescription) hydrocortisone cream worked wonders.check out the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories eg celebrex,check out the list of side-effects in celebrex,the list of side-effects outnumbers the list of benefits by a margin of at least 50!(includes sudden seizure,coma,and death).no thanks man I'l stick to aspirin if needed
Quote from: profitis on December 09, 2014, 05:32:28 PM
Well according to wikipedia
Mistake #1.
Quotethey
Who is "they". So far you've barely named a single drug. You've used a word that represents a class of drugs and another which is part of the name of a drug in that class. You have only used one word which can somewhat unambiguously reference a single drug.
All I ask is you know something before you start talking. Is that so hard for you?
Quote
all be used for eczema,asthma,arthritis.that alone tells me that they are infact differently re-arranged molecules used for exact same purposes
Nope. Can you guess your incredibly stupid error? Try. It makes it fun. I can give you a hint if you want.
Let me throw away the anti-asthma steroid and bring in fluoroprednisolone.now we have 3 distinctly manipulated molecules all used for topical eczema mr sarkeizen.if you google some of the effects some patients have told about these 3 you will be horrified.the fluorine atom manipulations extort the properties of the original hydrocortisone and predisolone hormones to grossly disproportionate magnitudes.potencies of glucocorticoid activities enlarge from 100-1000 times that of hydrocortisone and prednisolone while other corticoid activities alter in uncertain ways from one person to the next.google some of the horror stories associated with these drugs you'l be shocked.3 manipulated molecules,3 exact same uses,3 potential horrors.all absorb very well through human skin
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 03:52:34 AM
fluoroprednisolone.now we have 3 distinctly manipulated molecules
Please state clearly the *drugs* you are comparing - not drug classes - or chemicals. For example Triamcinolone is a chemical, Triamcinolone Acetonide is also a chemical but also can be used to unambiguously refer to a class of drugs which contains at least six drugs I can name just off the top of my head. The reason is that chemicals, drug classes and drugs all have different reasons for being different.
Again, all I ask is that you know something before you type. Why is that hard?
Why pretend that you dont see three distinct yet related chemical drug molecules ontop your post mr sarkeizen?they're the tip of the iceberg there's dozens more.why are there so many different glucocorticoid molecules on the market for eczema mr sarkeizen.why are horror stories more common for the fluorinated steroid species than for hydrocortisone species mr sarkeizen.why do doctors prescribe amphetamines to kids when they know its potential dangers mr sarkeizen. is greed for money enough of an incentive to manipulate molecules of drugs for sake of exclusivity and manipulate regulations of said drugs in such a way as to speed up their injection into the market mr sarkeizen.
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 03:05:36 PM
Why pretend that you dont see three distinct yet related chemical
Are you talking about drugs or not? If you want to talk about chemicals then you've kind of lost your own argument.
Interesting how utterly easy it is to stop your argument cold isn't it? One simple straightforward question: "Show me what you're talking about..." and then it's all "refuse refuse refuse" for months. :-)
@sarkeizen I am discussing chemical drugs
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 03:58:25 PM
@sarkeizen I am discussing chemical drugs
How is it there are no drug names in your posts? If you want to discuss drugs. Then name two or three ACTUAL drugs - something I could actually write in a script in a way that a pharmacist could fill with my EXACT INTENT. Otherwise you're not really talking about drugs in the same way that a drug company thinks about patenting drugs.
So like I said you've killed your own argument. :-)
@sarkeizen no you didn't stop my argument man you left it hanging.3 related drugs associated with horror tales.all used for same thing
My argument is hanging @sarkeizen.not killed.you can't kill it and neither can I
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 04:29:42 PM
My argument is hanging @sarkeizen.not killed.you can't kill it and neither can I
Dude. It's simply been stopped cold. You have no more information to give. Now you can just spend your days avoiding and denying.
One question. Profits's argument stopped. Two for two. :-)
My argument is that companies are under pressure to manipulate molecules and shove them into market just to make a fast buck through patent exclusivity mr sarkeizen.over a dozen different fluoro-hormones,on the market,under various brands, for dermatitis mr sarkeizen
Maybe I didn't win the argument against your argument mr sarkeizen but I didn't lose it either
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 04:47:33 PM
Maybe I didn't win the argument against your argument mr sarkeizen
My argument is simple: You don't know what you're talking about. Since you can provide no information to make your point. I think that makes me right. :-)
lol 100 different relatives for headache tablets mr sarkeizen..on the market buddy cmon man (-: (-:
A thousand different obesity amphetamines,on the market mmm
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:12:38 PM
lol 100 different relatives for headache tablets mr sarkeizen..on the market buddy cmon man (-: (-:
Name some drugs - something you could write in a script - and we will talk. Otherwise you need to get back to pretending you know something about some other field.
why did a million different ssri's suddenly become available after the prozac craze mr sarkeizen.is it really necessary to dig up drug names in this instance to support my argument for the obvious?
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 04:40:22 PM
My argument is that companies are under pressure to manipulate molecules
No, sorry you lose at recognizing your own argument. Which is impressive. See you said drug companies are actually making small changes to drugs only to keep a patent. This is what you said. Go back and look. I'll wait.
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:35:56 PM
is it really necessary to dig up drug names
If your argument is that drug companies make tiny changes to DRUGS to preserve a patent and I'm asking you for an example. Then yes the example has to consist of the thing you are talking about.
Oh and again you are confusing a drug class with a drug. In this case SSRI represents the FUNCTION not even the chemical. Obviously - even to very stupid people - many different chemicals can perform the same function.
No I said that companies are under pressure,to alter molecules,to get patents on drugs that they do and do not have patents on.I also added that they may not be fully testing these altered drugs for complete safety under regulation standards
My argument can easily extend to non-related molecules doing the exact same thing eg ssri's since it falls into the rush-to-patent-anything-that-works category
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:48:05 PM
companies are under pressure,to alter molecules,to get patents on drugs
However that's not what is being discussed. This is:
Quote
look how the pharmaceutical companies re-arrange a molecule or two every 6months on new drugs
This is the only statement that's under contention. This would be obvious to even someone as silly as yourself since I asked for examples of the drugs where a molecule (or two has been changed) which you still haven't supplied. :) :)
Quote from: profitis on December 10, 2014, 05:52:09 PM
My argument can easily extend to non-related molecules doing the exact same thing eg ssri's
You can change your argument to anything you want but you actually have to state it in a way that can actually be discussed. So if you are saying some DRUGS have some characteristic X then it's reasonable to expect YOU to provide examples of DRUGS with characteristic X. If you can't or refuse then then you really don't have much of an argument.
Again it's pretty amazing how one simple and straightforward question and I have you trying to twist and turn and change your argument. You are quite possibly the weakest opponent I've ever met. :)
Quote from: sarkeizen
...
You are quite possibly the weakest opponent I've ever met. :)
Poker according to Maverick. Or
Kenny Rogers.
How can I be the weakest arguer that you ever met when YOU cannot possibly DISPROVE me mr sarkeizen.
You cannot possibly disprove a) altering molecules for sake of exclusivity eg fluorinated progesterone,androgen,and corticoid species).b)speeding through tests to get drugs on market endangering public eg.thalidomide and c) endangering the public with altered molecules (eg celebrex,ritalin)
Here mr sarkeizen http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/fenfluramine/phentermine direct evidence of pressure to alter molecules for profit at our safety expense.amphetaminederivative fenfluramine was totaly banned,then lawsuited,then rapidly re-arranged into dexfenfluramine.dexfenfluramine is compelled to have a warning in europe but not in the states
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 02:11:53 AM
How can I be the weakest arguer that you ever met when YOU cannot possibly DISPROVE me mr sarkeizen.
Because I'm arguing that you don't know what you're talking about. Which at this point seems to be true as you can't even name two actual drugs where small changes are made just to preserve patents. I think we can agree if you don't know what you're talking about then the idea that you need to be disproven is pretty laughable. :) Right?
Wrong.wikipedia declares that fenfluramine was evil then banned then altered then warned about
Quote from: sarkeizen on December 11, 2014, 09:27:49 AM
Which at this point seems to be true as you can't even name two actual drugs where small changes are made just to preserve patents.
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 09:30:21 AM
Wrong.wikipedia declares that fenfluramine was evil then banned then altered then warned about
Except that doesn't say anything about preserving patents. So my statement isn't wrong. :)
Does the fact that you are now arguing "changed to be safer" mean I've stopped your argument about changing for no other reason but to preserve a patent? Because clearly changing something to make it safer is clearly not identical to preserving a patent.
Fenfluramine was banned then altered to preserve patent rights.at expense of public safety mr sarkeizen.the revised molecule contains a massive warning on its label in europe.this is making a molecule safer? Safer with a neon warning? This supports my argument to a T.this is classic
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 01:22:06 PM
Fenfluramine was banned then altered to preserve patent rights.at expense of public safety mr sarkeizen.the revised molecule contains a massive warning on its label in europe.this is making a molecule safer? Safer with a neon warning? This supports my argument to a T.this is classic
Again, is this your new argument? You no longer can advance your "just to keep patents" argument. So your new made up argument is: "Changed just to be safer". If that's not your argument then you need to state it clearly.
If they are willing to shove an evil relative of an evil molecule through the patent office and into the streets at lightning speed what will they do when they are not in the spotlight mr sarkeizen.you wanted two examples so let's look at fenfluramine's partner,,altered amphetamine relative phentermine.chek out phentermine on this list of 5 drugs available in the u.s. but banned in other countries due to toxicity http://www.newsmaxhealth.com/headline/drugs-medications-fda-banned/2014/05/14/id/571315/
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 01:46:34 PM
If they are willing to shove an
Again. What is your argument? "Changed with the hope to make it safer" or "Changed with one and only one thing in mind: Preserving a patent" or what? Once you decide what your argument is. I'll start paying attention to what you are saying. Until then I think your inability to state your position clearly is sufficient evidence to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.
Pressure to preserve or possess exclusivity at expense of public safety via altering molecules mr sarkeizen.this is my argument,this happens,alot
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 01:58:16 PM
Pressure to preserve or possess exclusivity
How do you think this case would be made? How do you determine that the only possible reason for an action is "pressure to preserve".
Difficult to show in court yet we know its there.the eg. dexfenfluramine case could be pinned on plain greed(companies fault) or on 'pressure to patent'(societies fault).depends which stance the lawyer takes.he can harness jury fears very nicely either way.the ideal outcome from such a case would be new national regulations on drug-patent procedure or safety testing standards.such regulations could have backlash though for research
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 03:30:09 PM
Difficult to show in court
Not talking about court. How does an action only and ever indicate a desire to preserve a patent? You don't seem able to say. Seems like good reason to believe that you don't know what you're talking about.
Motivation.if there's a motive to preserve a patent in that way then by god it will be preserved in that way since it is 'perfectly legal' to do so
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 04:22:33 PM
.if there's a motive to preserve a patent in that way then
That seems very to be a very stupid thing to say. A motive isn't directly observable. Can you tell me what you need to observe to determine that something was done for no other reason than to preserve a patent?
You need to observe behaviour such as in the amphetamine altered into fenfluramine altered into dexfenfluramine case mr sarkeizen.that case was only exposed after multiple horrors,multiple lawsuits.why didn't they scrap the new 'improved-with-a-massive-warning' dexfenfluramine molecule altogether?why did they press on with it?
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 03:43:37 AM
You need to observe behaviour
Please cite the characteristics (not an example) of behavior which makes it impossible for there to be a reason other than preserving patents.
Look for characteristics from the fenfluramine case mr sarkeizen.look for those same characteristics in other examples and you will have a winner
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 10:05:26 AM
Look for characteristics from the fenfluramine case mr sarkeizen.look for those same characteristics in other examples and you will have a winner
Awesome. So the only criteria that you can give me to evaluate a case is based on a case where you have assumed your condition to be true. This is called "begging the question".
Weakest. Argument. Yet.
If there's a possibility that begging the question or even just motive affects public safety then it becomes more important or serious than you imply.
Quote from: profitis on December 13, 2014, 03:04:48 PM
If there's a possibility that begging the question
You are begging the question. You appear to claim that you can determine that X implies Y when X possesses attribute Z. When asked how you know that X possessing Z -> Y your only answer so far is that you have assumed that some X possessing Z implies Y.
So in other words you really don't have an argument.
Yes I do let's use logic.yesteryear there were suchnsuch numbers of molecules available for treatment of x.this year there are suchnsuch+y numbers of molecules available for x.this trend predicts that next year there will be suchnsuch+y+z molecules available for x.these new molecules are highly likely to include re-arrangements(eg we want the prozac vibe but we also want our own novelty so let's 'borrow,re-arrange') amongst new variety.all of them will be totaly non-natural and completely manmade,a requirement of patent law.all of them will have different side-effects,no two different molecules have same.each side-effect is like a trajectory of a dart thrown by a barfly,most will hit in a sort-of predictable way whilst some land stuck in the waiters head or the wall.now put every single molecule on the market used for x's side-effect trajectories in a row and you will see the kind of dispersal and chaos that you see when a laser-beam of photons bounces on a pile of broken beer-bottles.an ever-increasing unpredictability of side-effects from one person to the next,all from treatment of x,due to requirement to patent novel material(pressure),fueled by desire to novelize already patented molecules and borrow their success(re-arrangement),driven by need to stay ahead of competitors or to just to be a competitor(motivation)
Bottom line= one hundred thousand potential side-effects in total next year vs 90000 this year just for x-treatment
Quote from: profitis on December 14, 2014, 12:55:11 PM
Yes I do let's use logic.
Nothing that followed there appeared to be logic. Wayyy too many poorly defined terms.
As I've stated before you can't rationally hold your belief that OU is easy to validate to just about anyone who wants to. Postulating big, well-funded free-energy labs which produce nothing reduces the likelihood of either the labs existing or increases the difficulty in OU validation.
OU is exceptionally easy for scientists and for children to validate as I've shown elsewhere on this website.OU is not easy to shove into public domains as it incurs loss of valuable I.P.
Quote from: profitis on December 15, 2014, 01:03:40 PM
OU is exceptionally easy for scientists and for children to validate as I've shown elsewhere on this website.
Yawn. Take a stats class.
QuoteOU is not easy to shove into public domains as it incurs loss of valuable I.P.
Only to the IP holders which is, by your claim millions if not billions of times smaller than those capable of validating OU. Again your own ideas do not predict the outcome. So your presuppositions are more likely wrong than right. :) :)
Who in their right mind would want to validate ou to public @sarkeizen? What's in it for them?your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is pointless.
Quote from: profitis on December 17, 2014, 03:48:44 AM
Who in their right mind would want to validate ou to public @sarkeizen?
Same thing for any technological advances. If you actually read science journals (and not just pretend to and then regurgitate titles which you claim support your theories) you would see an amazingly wide range of ideas. For example time machines have been published in the speculative "D" branch of the famous physics journal: Physical Review.
QuoteWhat's in it for them?
Wrong question idiot. It's what's in it for them in NOT publishing. For the vast majority of people - absolutely nothing. On the other hand for most people publishing something that violates a known law of physics in a way that is utterly and completely undeniable is likely to advance their career and would be a good candidate for a Nobel. I hear those net you a million dollars.
Quote
your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is
A good use of statistics. I agree. You have repeatedly stated that everyone is capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way. If that's true then the number of potential validations is pretty close to the global population. Now you claim that there are people who are against this because of IP. However the people who make money off energy IP is orders and order and orders of magnitude smaller by comparison.
Add to that most people on earth don't have a million dollars or a career in the sciences. Hence the expectation is we would see a publication. We do not, so the likely case is that OU isn't as easy or clear as you keep insisting. QED.
Quote from sarkeizn:
'Same thing for any technological advances. If you actually read science journals (and not just pretend to and then regurgitate titles which you claim support your theories) you would see an amazingly wide range of ideas. For example time machines have been published in the speculative "D" branch of the famous physics journal: Physical Review.'
End quote
I've seen some good shit in those journals.doesn't mean anybody will take it seriously eg cold fusion.
--- Quote fom profitis ---What's in it for them?
--- End quote ---
Wrong question idiot. It's what's in it for them in NOT publishing. For the vast majority of people - absolutely nothing. On the other hand for most people publishing something that violates a known law of physics in a way that is utterly and completely undeniable is likely to advance their career and would be a good candidate for a Nobel. I hear those net you a million dollars.'
End quote
This is not a certainty.plenty geniuses in history came up with good shit and got no nominations eg.the guy who discovered/createdthe prototype lithium ion battery.
--- Quote ---your comparrisons of ip holders to everybody else is
--- End quote ---
A good use of statistics. I agree. You have repeatedly stated that everyone is capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way. If that's true then the number of potential validations is pretty close to the global population. Now you claim that there are people who are against this because of IP. However the people who make money off energy IP is orders and order and orders of magnitude smaller by comparison.
Add to that most people on earth don't have a million dollars or a career in the sciences. Hence the expectation is we would see a publication. We do not, so the likely case is that OU isn't as easy or clear as you keep insisting. QED.'
End quote
Or the case is that ou is somewhat ignored by the mainstream media for a number of reasons eg not to fuck up the status quo
Quote from: profitis on December 17, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
I've seen some good shit in those journals.doesn't mean anybody will take it seriously eg cold fusion.
The question was "Why would you publish" and the answer is "because it is far more valuable to you to publish than to not publish". Not publishing gives you absolutely nothing for the vast majority of people. Publishing gives you a pretty good chance at a million dollars and a career in science. That is better than most peoples prospects. So the advantage is there and nothing is stopping them (because according to you ANYONE can do it and make it absolutely perfectly clear that they had accomplished this).
So again the expectation is to see journal articles published specifically validating OU but we don't and Bayes rule tells us that the unmet expectation must reduce the likelihood of either our presuppositions or our outcome.
So you can either believe that OU doesn't exist OR that you've been lying to us about the complexity in demonstrating it (or both). :)
My cells are not complex and were published on an open forum and definitely did open doors for my career.there's a handful of other peoples noncomplex overunities on youtube too.so why did these actions not change the world @sarkeizen.its like I said,these things are ignored by those who can change geists ie.they receive no general importance,only local importance ie.important to the authors career.since they are only important to the authors career,they won't have the impact that you are imagining they will have.they won't be validated by the numero-uno validator when majority of people want validation from the numero-uno validator before they believe anything
Also I forgot to mention that authors generaly want to be novel in their publications and will be unlikely to copy another prior author which makes overunity all the more difficult to promulgate.now each author has to find his own shit and not copy and look like a copycat
Quote from: profitis on December 18, 2014, 02:10:03 AM
My cells are not complex and were published on an open forum and
Did you submit to a journal for publication? Yes or no? If yes please provide a copy of your paper and the referee comments. My guess is no. In which case your complaint is irrelevant. The fact is you are asking people to believe that out of BILLIONS of people, each and every one - according to you can demonstrate in a utterly unambiguous way that there is absolutely no doubt that they have a OU device. Not one of them attempted to publish? Not one of the attempts succeeded?
So far your only objections are:
i) What's in it for them? This was answered, not only the same advancement that other people who publish get but also a chance at a million dollars.
ii) Why didn't it happen to you? You didn't get published primarily because you did not attempt it.
iii) They have a vested interest in energy IP. Only accounts for a microscopic portion of the group.
iv) Novelty in publication. You simply misunderstand the concept. Firstly novelty isn't really as strictly enforced as one might wish and secondly it's usually compared to published work. There is no clear, realized and unambiguous OU published work. In fact if you look at the publication guidelines from the SAGE group of journals. Point 1, paragraph one it lists "the conventional wisdom is mistaken" as criteria for considering your contribution novel. Ergo it's a pretty low bar to pass and especially so in OU.
v) Something about some made up "numero uno". As someone who has some visibility into publishing in journals I'd say that there is no such thing. A journal has an editorial board, each article will have reviewers/referees these can come from the board or sometimes suggested by the submitter. However there is no grand cabal. No black helicopters arrive to make sure we follow the guidance from our shadowy masters.
So again BILLIONS of potentials, ZERO published articles. Evidence suggest OU is either not as easy as you say OR it doesn't work. :)
Makes no difference.you can shove a clean clear overunity experiment into the filthy open forums or the 'prestigious' journals the outcome is the same.your career gets a boost,you get some micro-fame, that's as far as it goes.tell you what @sarkeizen do me a favour and talk to the noble prize peeps there by you please,ask them if they are willing to dish out a million for a 2lot violation evidence,tell them that they may do this quietly if they prefer,sort of slot me in un-noticed.we (you and me) split the cash even stevens if you can get this organised.
Quote from: profitis on December 18, 2014, 01:11:43 PM
Makes no difference.you can shove a clean clear overunity experiment into the filthy open forums or the 'prestigious' journals the outcome is the same.
Sorry, you have no opinion here. You have never submitted your OU nonsense to a journal.
Quotetalk to the noble prize peeps there by you please,ask them if they are willing to dish out a million for a 2lot violation evidence
A million dollars is the Nobel Prize award. So you will get that if you win.
Tell you what. You can have an opportunity to show me you're right. Get an article which clearly and unambiguously states the discovery of over unity in ANY journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or greater and if you don't win the Nobel prize within two years of publication. I'll give you $2000.
You seem pretty certain about that.you're saying that if I get published in a journal above ratings 1.8 with a 2lot bust i'm guaranteed a nobel? What does it take to get into a 1.8 journal? What makes you so sure that a nobel will be awarded for overunity in the first place after what I said about the status quo.
Quote from: profitis on December 18, 2014, 02:33:58 PM
You seem pretty certain about that.you're saying that if I get published in a journal above ratings 1.8 with a 2lot bust i'm guaranteed a nobel?
I'm confident enough to lay a few thousand on it. Maybe more.
Quote
What does it take to get into a 1.8 journal?
Good science. Something you know very little about. :)
Quote
What makes you so sure that a nobel will be awarded for overunity in the first place after what I said about the status quo.
Because you didn't make a compelling argument...or any argument really. In order to erode my confidence you actually have to provide something of substance. Funny how that works.
Anyway the facts are: Nobody has published. There is good reason to publish (there is at least a chance at a Nobel as well as career). Everyone - according to you can publish a perfectly unarguably unambiguous paper.
....but no such papers exist. Sooooo either you are wrong about the ease that unambiguous evidence can be produced or OU is for morons. :)
Idono @sarkeizen idono.you've got guys like sheehan and ahern and others who are capable of publishing absolute proofs,yet they shy away from that.why are they not going for the noble gold.and that's just 2 guys,both in far better position to get into a 1.8journal than myself(due to their circles of friends within science elites)what about the others out there.the time may not be ripe for such a noble.anyway,what would the consequences be for society if a nobel were to be awarded for such absolute proofs?for example,how would this affect the stockmarket?
And a billion people can publish yes,if all billion are a)copycats b)electrochemists c)aware of my proofs d)prone to publishing e)in the mood for publishing f)able to publish
Quote from: profitis on December 19, 2014, 03:11:44 AM
for example,how would this affect the stockmarket?
Again, if you are correct then there are billions of candidates who can prove this in an absolute and utterly unambiguous way from which there is no reasonable doubt. The expectation is: We should see unambiguous published proofs.
We don't. Hence it' is not easy or believing in OU is for people who have had icepick lobotomies or their non-surgical equivalents.
Your counter argument: Each and every one of the billions of people are actively looking out for the stock market instead of wanting a reasonable chance at money equivalent to them working at least twenty-two years. (OECD avg annual salary is around 1/22nd of $1M USD). Even in countries like Cambodia where the GDP is less than $1M where about 1 in 2 children are chronically undernourished. Of the 10 Million adults there every single one of them cares more about the stock market than watching children starve?
The likelihood of that is next to nothing.
Also don't you find it interesting that you are now making up excuses for not making money with your idea. I've offered you two-thousand dollars. I could probably even go up from there if I was motivated. All you have to do is get your article published in a journal with a SJR rank greater than 1.8 and fail to win a Nobel prize in two years. Again you said your evidence is absolutely perfect. Right. No possible reasonable doubt but it's all excuses now. LOL! loser.
'
Again, if you are correct then there are billions of candidates who can prove this in an absolute and utterly unambiguous way from which there is no reasonable doubt. The expectation is: We should see unambiguous published proofs'
End quote
We should?who's we?
Quote from sarkeizen;'
We don't.
End quote
We don't? How many viewers saw hardcastles thread so far?
Quote from sarkeizen:'
Your counter argument: Each and every one of the billions of people are actively looking out for the stock market instead of wanting a reasonable chance at money equivalent to them working at least twenty-two years. (OECD avg annual salary is around 1/22nd of $1M USD). Even in countries like Cambodia where the GDP is less than $1M where about 1 in 2 children are chronically undernourished. Of the 10 Million adults there every single one of them cares more about the stock market than watching children starve?
The likelihood of that is next to nothing.'
End quote
Next to nothing? Show me the evidence please proving that cambodian peasantry will cease to exist by copying my work.
Quote from sarkeizen:'
Also don't you find it interesting that you are now making up excuses for not making money with your idea. I've offered you two-thousand dollars. I could probably even go up from there if I was motivated. All you have to do is get your article published in a journal with a SJR rank greater than 1.8 and fail to win a Nobel prize in two years. Again you said your evidence is absolutely perfect. Right. No possible reasonable doubt but it's all excuses now. LOL!I'm a loser.'
End quote
Lol I've got plenty other ways to make money from my shit mr sarkeizen but let's say I made a decision to publish in an elite journal,how would I go about this? Would I have to join a university team or is it possible to throw it in email form to some random internet 1.8 journal? Are there such journals available for public submissions from a home compuder?
Quote from: profitis on December 19, 2014, 11:38:02 AM
'We should?who's we?
By "we" I mean "It should be reasonably easily observable."
Quote
We don't? How many viewers saw hardcastles thread so far?
Nobody needs to see hardcastles thread. This is simply OU. You have stated many times that your conclusions are obvious from any elementary chemistry textbook. Remember anyone with access to an elementary chemistry textbook can come to the same conclusions EASILY. They can validate it a way where there is no reasonable doubt EASILY.
However despite all this opportunity. No published work clearly validating OU. This is a likely outcome of your assertions. Hence your assumptions much not be correct. It's Bayes rule. Sorry.
QuoteNext to nothing?
Yep.
QuoteLol I've got plenty other ways to make money from my shit mr sarkeizen
Sure you can dupe people like any con artist. However to make money in any legitimate way. i.e. Making a real product that actually provides OU in an unambiguous way. Then no. You don't. :)
Quotelet's say I made a decision to publish in an elite journal,how would I go about this? Would I have to join a university team or is it possible to throw it in email form to some random internet 1.8 journal? Are there such journals available for public submissions from a home compuder?
Elite journal?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Did you think that's what I was asking? You are really THAT ignorant? "Nature" is an elite journal. It's SJR ranking is over 30! I'm asking for you to get published in a journal with a rank FIFTEEN TIMES LOWER! Hah! lol! *whew* Ok...but to answer your question: Every journal is different please read submission guidelines for yourself. Many these days accept electronic submission.
quote from sarkeizen:'
By "we" I mean "It should be reasonably easily observable."
End quote
To electrochemists yes.I'm not sure what percentage of the population knows what the 2lot is but I'm guessing its minuscule.
quote from sarkeizen:'
Nobody needs to see hardcastles thread. This is simply OU. You have stated many times that your conclusions are obvious from any elementary chemistry textbook. Remember anyone with access to an elementary chemistry textbook can come to the same conclusions EASILY. They can validate it a way where there is no reasonable doubt EASILY.'
End quote
Absolutely correct,for those that totaly understand what they are reading and for those that aren't fanaticly devoted to kelvins statement in the beginning of those same textbooks.at the very least they should see the contradictory discrepency
Quote from sarkeizen:'
However despite all this opportunity. No published work clearly validating OU. This is a likely outcome of your assertions. Hence your assumptions much not be correct. It's Bayes rule. Sorry.'
End quote
Bayes rule cannot predict what humans feel like doing or thinking after realizing they are staring ou in the face.
Quote from sarkeizen:'
Sure you can dupe people like any con artist. However to make money in any legitimate way. i.e. Making a real product that actually provides OU in an unambiguous way. Then no. You don't. :)'
End quote
Glad YOU think so,wink-wink (:(:(:
quote from sarkeizen:'
Elite journal?! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Did you think that's what I was asking? You are really THAT ignorant? "Nature" is an elite journal. It's SJR ranking is over 30! I'm asking for you to get published in a journal with a rank FIFTEEN TIMES LOWER! Hah! lol! *whew* Ok...but to answer your question: Every journal is different please read submission guidelines for yourself. Many these days accept electronic submission.'
End quote
Whoooooaaaarrr!! Who are you @sarkeizen?got some inside info?007 shit? From a kaka-journal to a nobel prize?I might just do it anyways in order to secure my place in history mmmmm yeah.
Quote from: profitis on December 19, 2014, 01:07:54 PM
Absolutely correct,for those that totally understand
Nope, they don't need to unless you exaggerated about the ease with which it could be validated. You said a child could validate. You made all your claims about absolute perfect proof from a high-school textbook. This is still an enormously massive group of potential validators.
QuoteBayes rule cannot predict what humans feel like doing or thinking
Doesn't have to. It just has to say what is the likely outcome. Sure there can be billions of people who are capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way and maybe they all just up and decide that they don't want to upset the stock market. Bayes rule simply says it's terribly unlikely. The more (if not most) likely scenario is that your assertion about ease or your assertions about OU are simply incorrect. :) Sorry.
QuoteI might just do it anyways in order to secure my place in history mmmmm yeah.
Don't worry you won't do it. :)
Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Nope, they don't need to unless you exaggerated about the ease with which it could be validated. You said a child could validate. You made all your claims about absolute perfect proof from a high-school textbook. This is still an enormously massive group of potential validators.
End quote
Majority of people,including children are not interested in validating things they don't know about or have no interest in
Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Doesn't have to. It just has to say what is the likely outcome. Sure there can be billions of people who are capable of validating OU in a completely unambiguous way and maybe they all just up and decide that they don't want to upset the stock market. Bayes rule simply says it's terribly unlikely. The more (if not most) likely scenario is that your assertion about ease or your assertions about OU are simply incorrect. :) Sorry.'
End quote
Most people do not know what ou is and therefore have no interest in it.
Quote frm sark:
'Don't worry you won't do it. :)'
End quote
Now this deserves a thread all on its own titled:'will they ever give a noble for ou'.what's in it for society to give a noble for ou @sarkeizen? How does this benefit society? Maybe they can shove an award in the contenders hand in such a way as to prevent a general panick eg 'this award is for his research on the limitations of the 2lot or this award is for his research in thermodynamics or some other veiled phrase as opposed to,'this award is for fucking the laws of physics inside-out?' You still haven't told me why you are so sure that such a noble will be awarded for a genuine ou?
Quote from: profitis on December 21, 2014, 04:22:09 PM
Majority of people,including children are not interested in validating things they don't know about or have no interest in
According to you it is obvious to everyone who has read a high-school chemistry textbook. Again when something is easy and there are a large number of people who are capable. The expectation is that it will happen. You say it's easy, you say there are a large number of people who are capable. Hence the expectation is we should see this. We don't, Bayes rule says you have to adjust your likelihoods. Either it is hard or it can't be done.
QuoteMost people do not know what ou is and therefore have no interest in it.
People do not need to know what OU is. They simply need to be able to recognize that something that could power something eternally. Which, again according to you ANY CHILD can do and anyone who's read a high-school level textbook would find it obvious. Hence again, the expectation you have set up is that you will see an article in a journal which unambiguously states the proof of OU. You can't so...you need to readjust what you are saying about how easy this is.
QuoteNow this deserves a thread all on its own titled:'will they ever give a noble for ou'.
Except that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about you getting published in a 1.8 ranked journal. It won't happen. I have offered you thousands of dollars if you do and fail to get the million from the Nobel but you keep making excuses and attempting to shift the argument to the likelihood of getting a Nobel. How many thousand do I need to offer?
Quote frm sark :'Except that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about you getting published in a 1.8 ranked journal. It won't happen. I have offered you thousands of dollars if you do and fail to get the million from the Nobel but you keep making excuses and attempting to shift the argument to the likelihood of getting a Nobel. How many thousand do I need to offer?'
End quote
What do you have to gain mr sarkeizen.one way you lose money,and the other way? Are you willing to go up to ten thousand dollars..that converts into a decent sum over here where I am
Quote from: profitis on December 22, 2014, 02:13:49 AM
What do you have to gain mr sarkeizen.
Nothing but I suspect that the odds of you being correct are, conservatively 1 in 10^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. So I'm not in danger of losing anything for my next 50 billion lifetimes.
Quoteone way you lose money,and the other way?
I consider the odds of you being correct to be immensely worse than the odds of a perfect proof of OU not winning the Nobel. If you had checked you would have seen at least a few quotes from people who have done work in the field of Thermodynamics (if you can all that a field) who consider OU an "automatic Nobel".
QuoteAre you willing to go up to ten thousand dollars.
Willing but I can probably only pay out $5000 from cash on hand and I don't like betting beyond that even if there's virtually no chance of losing. I'm comfortable not rich. :)
Also I assume it wouldn't be hard to win the forum prize money which is more than $5K last I checked.
Remember your article must be printed in an journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or better and it must clearly claim overunity in some unambiguous way.
...and not win the Nobel in 2 years. I'd also add some common sense things like your article can't be retracted in that period.
quote frm sark:'
Nothing but I suspect that the odds of you being correct are, conservatively 1 in 10^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999. So I'm not in danger of losing anything for my next 50 billion lifetimes'
End quote
Those are your odds yet you take the bet in the first place? You're a strange gambler mr sarkeizen.
quote frm sark:'
I consider the odds of you being correct to be immensely worse than the odds of a perfect proof of OU not winning the Nobel. If you had checked you would have seen at least a few quotes from people who have done work in the field of Thermodynamics (if you can all that a field) who consider OU an "automatic Nobel"
End quote
Yet you lose 5000 if I DONT get a nobel.so if I don't get a noble arent you going to say'hey you didn't get a noble becoz your evidence was underunity so I'm not gona giv you the 5grand?
quote frm sark:'
Also I assume it wouldn't be hard to win the forum prize money which is more than $5K last I checked.'
End quote
There's larger prizes around.
Quote frm sark:'
Remember your article must be printed in an journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or better and it must clearly claim overunity in some unambiguous way.'
End quote
'Evidence for Spontaneously reversable thermodynamics in concentration cells' how does that sound @sarkeizen? I may aswell just copy karpens original journal publications,polish,re-arrange them a bit and submit them right?
you sound kind of married ;D , anyway... Nobel? Are you serious? As in Nobel Dynamite, Military Industrial complex? You must be kidden. They would never give a prize for OU.
Excess heat from LENR is pretty much verified today and yet, the establishment completely ignores it, still calls it pathetic science. Pons and Fleischmann were ruined, embarassed, destroyed... Jim Patterson and his Grandson are dead (Patterson Power cell, Pd covered Beads..,)
OU woukd destroy the elites sick little dream of world enslavement. They would never allow that.
All honoured, established, successfull people are part of a criminal establishment. Esp. in the energy sector.
Nobel prize ... lol ::)
Correct dieter.yet mr sarkeizen imagines they will liberaly just handover a prize
Quote from: dieter on December 23, 2014, 03:42:20 AMExcess heat from LENR is pretty much verified today
Yawn.
a) Excess heat is better stated as "heat of unknown origin" most likely experimental error.
b) Who elected you decider of what is "pretty much verified".
c) profits hasn't said that he has a "pretty good verification". He has said that he has a proof that is beyond any possible reasonable doubt.
Quote from: profitis on December 23, 2014, 02:58:54 AM
Those are your odds yet you take the bet in the first place? You're a strange gambler mr sarkeizen.
Why is that odd? I have very little to lose here. :)
QuoteYet you lose 5000 if I DONT get a nobel.so if I don't get a noble arent you going to say'hey you didn't get a noble becoz your evidence was underunity so I'm not gona giv you the 5grand?
Nope. I get that like almost everyone here your mathematical abilities are worse than an eight year old.
I pay out if you get published (in the way agreed upon) and you don't get a Nobel. I believe the probability that you are correct is incredibly close to zero and the probability of you getting published and not getting a Nobel to also be vanishingly small. Hence the risk of BOTH events occurring together are even smaller. So again, my risk is lower than crossing the street.
Quote
'Evidence for Spontaneously reversable thermodynamics in concentration cells' how does that sound @sarkeizen? I may aswell just copy karpens original journal publications,polish,re-arrange them a bit and submit them right?
Well you might consider using a spellchecker. :) As long as it completely and unambiguously claims the clear existence of OU.
Quote frm sark:'Why is that odd? I have very little to lose here. :)
End quote
5000 is little to lose?
Quote frm sark:'I pay out if you get published (in the way agreed upon) and you don't get a Nobel.'
End quote
I think YOU want a career boost via association and you want to let me take the risks of being the fall-guy by going for a noble correct mr sarkeizen?
Quote frm sark:'well you might consider using a spellchecker. :) As long as it completely and unambiguously claims the clear existence of OU.'
End quote
Thanks for pointing that out bud I'l definitely get spelling organised yes (:
Quote from: profitis on December 23, 2014, 01:21:45 PM5000 is little to lose?
Nobody taught you how to calculate how much you are risking? Perhaps there's an elementary school where you can take classes? $5000 is what I would lose if I did this same bet over the lifespan of many universes. What I'm risking here and now is practically nothing. If by some miracle I'm wrong I've hedged against the idea that a paper in a peer-reviewed journal which unequivocally re-writes an enormous part of science. Would be highly likely to win a Nobel. If by some cosmic misfortune I'm wrong in both counts. It's $5000 which I pay out after two years. I don't know what you make every year but $5000 is easily within my discretionary spending over two years.
QuoteI think YOU want a career boost via association and you want to let me take the risks of being the fall-guy by going for a noble correct mr sarkeizen?
How would this boost my career? According to you, you have a 100% absolute unshakable proof that no reasonable person can refuse. All I'm hearing from you are excuse, after excuse, after excuse. Would the excuses end at $6000?
Quote frm sark:'How would this boost my career?'
End quote
If I get a noble?many ways eg betting or hedging on some specific area of markets plus you can brag to everyone'I motivated him to publish'.I have to put my feelers out ther 1st to get a feel for statistical chances for nomination mr sarkeizen.one million dollars is definitely a motivator plus the prestige that comes with the prize but I'm not so convinced that a nobel will ever be awarded for a 2lot bust unless,unless we reach a point in history where so many people around the world are busting 2lots that it can no longer be ignored by the media,I do see this happening in not too distant future
Quote from: profitis on December 23, 2014, 02:20:47 PMIf I get a noble? many ways eg betting or hedging on some specific area of markets
Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Only speaking as someone you knows more than you ever will about this. Moron.
Quoteyou can brag to everyone'I motivated him to publish'
LOL. Fine. I'll provide the money under a contract where I am strictly anonymous with a penalty clause.
QuoteI have to put my feelers out ther 1st to get a feel for statistical chances for nomination mr sarkeizen
excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses excuses
When do the excuses end? At $7000?
Quote frm sark:'When do the excuses end?'
End quote
They end when you explain why you think ou will be given a noble and when I'm satisfied with your explanation
Quote from: profitis on December 24, 2014, 03:52:10 PM
They end when you explain why you think ou will be given a noble and when I'm satisfied with your explanation
In other words you have no end of excuses. :) I could offer you $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000 and you would still find a reason not to attempt to publish.
Well that's easily the best gift I'm going to get this year: Rather substantial proof, that you are sort of lying to people about your research. :)
Quote frm sark:
'In other words you have no end of excuses. :) I could offer you $20,000, $50,000 or $100,000 and you would still find a reason not to attempt to publish.
End quote
Damn right mr sarkeizen,until you make me believe that a noble will be handed over for ou.go on,try.those guys who said 'automatic noble'must be rookies or juniors.
Quote frm sark:'Well that's easily the best gift I'm going to get this year: Rather substantial proof, that you are sort of lying to people about your research. :)'
End quote
In a most perverse twist of fate you will have to find flaw with the laws of thermodynamics in order to substantiate this
Quote from: profitis on December 25, 2014, 05:57:25 PM
Damn right mr sarkeizen,until you make me believe that a noble will be handed over for ou.
I don't have to. I don't really care. There were three possible outcomes.
i) You would refuse to make the attempt.
ii) You would make the attempt and fail.
iii) You would make the attempt and succeed.
If ii) you would be embarrassed and I would be happy. If iii) I'd be out a few bucks assuming the Nobel committee doesn't come through. If i) it provides heavy evidence against the ease and clarity of your proof.
Quote from: sarkeizen
Well that's easily the best gift I'm going to get this year: Rather substantial proof, that you are sort of lying to people about your research. :)
Quote from: profitisyou will have to find flaw with the laws of thermodynamics in order to substantiate this
Nope. All I have to show is that you are acting inconsistent with your established interests. :) You were effectively being offered a salary to write a paper which you claim would be absolutely easy. It would be free money, it would establish your research on a global scale (remember according to you your argument has no reasonable counter). I was happy to make it so that I could not profit from your success. The only thing you had to do was invest time in writing up a paper for research which you say is already complete and utterly unimpeachable.
Again, Bayes rule says that we have to assume you are kind of lying.
Mmm tempting mr sarkeizen tempting.I might do it if all else fails.I'm working on a formula for a clock right now.I think everlasting clocks,watches will be a hit and bring reasonable income
And bayes rule only goes to where bayes rule is allowed to go for example,anybody can get rich by robbing a bank yet not many peeps rob banks(I think?)
free energy is super simple
you put DC power into a motor with a 100cm circumference pulley on it
you attach a belt, strap, rope or even a string in a pinch
and then attach at least one AC motor to a 1cm pulley on the same belt
you run the AC output through a full wave bridge rectifier to self power...
your DC input motor,,,,
then you have just created your first free energy electricity multiplier
satan will try to complain about torque, but it is no problem, just think about how easily an electric motor rotates,,,
you could have 10 - 100 AC motors attached, multiplying your input by 1000 - 10 000..
now dont you think this much output power could turn your input DC motor
Quote from: profitis on December 29, 2014, 04:12:37 AM
Mmm tempting mr sarkeizen tempting.I might do it if all else fails.I'm working on a formula for a clock right now.I think everlasting clocks,watches will be a hit and bring reasonable income
Excuses. Dude I've offered a better hourly rate than anything you're currently working on.
Quote from: profitis on December 29, 2014, 04:18:18 AM
And bayes rule only goes to where bayes rule is allowed to go for example,anybody can get rich by robbing a bank yet not many peeps rob banks(I think?)
Sorry that's actually the opposite of Bayes rule. Robbing banks is not an expectation of people in general because a) Not everyone is physically capable of robbing a bank and b) Not everyone is mentally capable - i.e. people think robbing a bank is wrong c) It is high risk 60% of Bank robberies end in charges laid.
Whereas, according to you a) Everyone who took read a high-school chemistry book is mentally capable b) Virtually everyone is physically capable and c) There is a near zero chance of failure to produce an indisputable result.
Anyway, again thanks for letting people know that you're something of a fraud. :-)
that-prophet would you kindly stop spamming threads with your rehashed unworkable scheme?
Quote frm sarkeizen:'Anyway, again thanks for letting people know that you're something of a fraud. :-)'
End quote
Except that you would be hard- pressed to find flaw with the laws of thermodynamics in order to substantiate this.gas concentration cells obey the rules,assymetricly.that is my assertion
Quote frm sarkeizen:'Whereas, according to you a) Everyone who took read a high-school chemistry book is mentally capable b) Virtually everyone is physically capable and c) There is a near zero chance of failure to produce an indisputable result.'
End quote
Absolutely
Quote from: profitis on December 30, 2014, 08:18:27 PM
Except that you would be hard- pressed to find flaw with the laws of thermodynamics in order to substantiate this.
I don't need to. Bayes rule. You have to reduce the probability of any hypothesis when it fails to meet the expectation.
Quote from: profitis on December 30, 2014, 08:27:02 PM
Absolutely
Hence the situation I describe is a correct application of Bayes rule and yours was not. :-)
Quote from: profitis on Today at 02:18:27 AM ---Except that you would be hard- pressed to find flaw with the laws of thermodynamics in order to substantiate this.
--- End quote ---
Quote frm sarkeizen:
'I don't need to. Bayes rule. You have to reduce the probability of any hypothesis when it fails to meet the expectation.'
End quote
These two statements are incompatible.you will be required to show how these concentration cells disobey the rules of thermodynamics assymetricly
Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Hence the situation I describe is a correct application of Bayes rule and yours was not. :-)'
End quote
Bullshit.how many people can show that gas concentration cells obey the rules of thermodynamics assymetricly?plenty people man
Quote from: profitis on December 31, 2014, 02:44:40 AM
These two statements are incompatible.you will be required to show how these concentration cells disobey the rules of thermodynamics assymetricly
Nope. I've already shown that the outcome is not matching the expectation.
Quote
Bullshit.how many people can show that gas concentration cells obey the rules of thermodynamics assymetricly?plenty people man
Either it's easy and obvious or it's not. If it's not easy and obvious then you've been lying. If it is, then there is an unmet expectation and we need to devalue a hypothesis. Let me know which one you decide to go with. :-)
quote frm sarkeizen:'either it's easy and obvious or it's not. If it's not easy and obvious then you've been lying. If it is, then there is an unmet expectation and we need to devalue a hypothesis. Let me know which one you decide to go with. :-)'
End quote
The former.Do you have any nickel sponge lying around @sarkeizen?
Quote from: profitis on December 31, 2014, 12:14:51 PM
The former.
That you've been lying about it being easy and obvious? Well again, thanks for the Christmas present. :-)
Have you got any nickel sponge lying around @sarkeizen?
Quote from: profitis on December 31, 2014, 03:21:21 PM
Have you got any nickel sponge lying around @sarkeizen?
No idea. Are you going to make yourself a bigger liar? :-) That, when faced with having to reduce the likelihood of OU. You will now claim that it can only be clearly and unambiguously validated by a very, very, very small population? :-)
Nope.the text-book discrepency can be validated by whomever sees it and whomever wants to validate it,period.got any platinum sponge lying around @sarkeizen?(:(:(:
Quote from: profitis on December 31, 2014, 05:40:19 PM
Nope.the text-book discrepency can be validated by whomever sees it and whomever wants to validate it,period.
So in other words OU isn't very likely. Thanks. :-)
How does your 'unlikely' equate with my 'whomever sees it'? This is incompatible mr sarkeizen.those who prove,beyond a doubt,that such cells obey the law of thermodynamics assymetricly are clear winners.
Quote from: profitis on January 01, 2015, 05:26:44 AM
How does your 'unlikely' equate with my 'whomever sees it'?
It doesn't need to. :) Either something is easy and obvious to a very large group of candidates or it isn't.
a large group are noticing it and are jumping onto it and are taking it further,much further.exploring it to its limits.
Quote from: profitis on January 01, 2015, 05:27:39 PM
a large group are noticing it and are jumping onto it and are taking it further,much further.exploring it to its limits.
But somehow out of MILLIONS (or perhaps billions) nobody is publishing this absolutely unambiguous idea or any other completely unambiguous OU statement. :)
You only have two choices. Either it's harder than you say or it's less likely to exist. :)
Quote frm sark;'But somehow out of MILLIONS (or perhaps billions) nobody is publishing this absolutely unambiguous idea or any other completely unambiguous OU statement. :)'
You have got to be kidding correct? :):):):) its fucking everywhere sir,plastered all over internet and thousands journals,newsmags,sciencemags,newspapers,videos,even here in africa its got large attention at moment.and still, gaining more attention by the hour from the press
Quote from: profitis on January 02, 2015, 06:40:51 AM
You have got to be kidding correct? :):):):) its fucking everywhere sir
But not stated in an unambiguous way in journals. :) which is what you would expect if millions (or perhaps billions) recognize it. Hence it's less likely to be true thanks for admitting this. :)
@Sark
QuoteBut somehow out of MILLIONS (or perhaps billions) nobody is publishing this
absolutely unambiguous idea or any other completely unambiguous OU statement.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foverunity.com%2FSmileys%2Fdefault%2Fsmiley.gif&hash=988f235d2137dcd6eeb7b9ed4d2dce57a9298b3c)
You only have two choices. Either it's harder than you say or it's less likely to
exist.
Actually no, you do not define my number of choices I do and to presume otherwise is absurd.
I choose option C, which states underachievers will always try to hold everyone else to their particular flavor of normalcy no matter how ridiculous or misguided it may be. In fact I would go so far as to say 95% of the billions you speak of can barely balance their check book so why would you presume they are intelligent enough to rationalize the concept of Energy in any meaningful way?. I mean near 70% of these billions you speak of honestly believe a bearded man in a white/black dress created the whole universe in a matter of days and you would use them as a reference for a lack of evidence, lol, really?.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on January 02, 2015, 11:05:18 AM
Actually no, you do not define my number of choices
Not me. Profits. I'm just doing the math for him.
Quote
In fact I would go so far as to say 95% of the billions you speak of can barely balance their check book so why would you presume they are intelligent enough to rationalize the concept of Energy in any meaningful way?
I didn't. Profitis did. :) He said that it would be easy to demonstrate and OBVIOUS to anyone who read a high school chemistry text. If true, you simply have to look at the number of candidates to realize that either he is lying about the number of candidates (which is the same as the difficulty in recognizing and demonstrating) OR we have an unmet expectation from a hypothesis and Bayes rule tells us (indirectly) in that case we must reduce the likelihood of that hypothesis . :)
Quote frm sark:'Demonstrate and OBVIOUS to anyone who read a high school chemistry text.'
Bollox.I said anyone who noticed the discrepency between the front of the textbook and section on concentration cells but nevermind that because bayes has done its thing regardless of ambiguosity perspectives.ten thousand say this in journals,ten thousand say that in journals,the common theme remains unaltered,gross imbalance in entropy chekbooks,and bayes is finetuning that by the hour to less ambiguous precipitate
Quote from: profitis on January 02, 2015, 07:35:23 PM
I said anyone who noticed the discrepency between the front of the textbook and section on concentration cells
Nope....and as usual your point is irrelevant...unless "noticing" - whatever that means - is incredibly hard. If it is, then you lied, there is no easy, clear and unambiguous proof - since that would involve "noticing" which is very hard all of a sudden. :)
If there is a easy, clear and unambiguous proof - then it's probably wrong. :)
Sorry you feel otherwise but this is how probability works. :)
Crap @sarkeizen.so you're saying that because only a few people notice electrons that electrons are fake?ambiguous?suspect?can't trust em?
Quote from: profitis on January 02, 2015, 08:38:58 PM
Crap @sarkeizen.so you're saying that because only a few people notice electrons that electrons are fake?ambiguous?suspect?can't trust em?
Everyone notices electrons. Charge a 200V 470uf capacitor and ask someone to touch the terminals.
That's the effect of invisible electrons yes.not the sight of electrons no.yet we're told by the few who noticed individual sightings of electrons that electrons exist.we must believe them and not me?
Quote from: profitis on January 02, 2015, 09:10:48 PM
That's the effect of invisible electrons yes.not the sight of electrons
You realize that everything you see is the effect of something invisible right? Or don't you?
Beside the point.a handful of guys have seen individual electrons footprints.now we all believe that these thingys run through our wires.I could just aswell say a hanful of guys touched californium,now we all believe in the existence of californium.
Quote from: profitis on January 02, 2015, 10:31:03 PM
Beside the point.
Nope. Exactly the point. If you are saying "A not B" then A and B have to be different. You agreed everyone sees the effect of something invisible but not everyone sees the invisible thing. However "seeing" itself is actually JUST THE EFFECT OF SOMETHING INVISIBLE.
Quotea handful of guys have seen individual electrons footprints
But haven't seen electrons. All you appear to be saying is that some people saw something that other people did not. This doesn't seem to require talking about electrons. You might as well refer to any experience shared by only a few people.
If you don't understand how that's different from what I was describing then you should go back and re-read.
Its not hard to notice the discrepency for discerning individuals and definitely not hard to notice the discrepency once pointed out to someone who didn't see the discrepency by someone who did see the discrepency.your argument is flawed eg. 3000 people read the textbook up to page 5 while twenty read up to page 30.of the twenty who read up to page 30 only 6 are paying attention subtitle concentration cells.of the 6 that are paying attention to subheading concentration cells only one is reading sub-sub-title section on electrode concentration cells.of the one that is paying attention to sub-sub-title electrode concentration cells only 0.25 is paying attention to sub-sub-sub-title gas electrode concentration cells or gas reference electrodes.you're implying that the whole world must jump upndown and celebrate by doing experiments to verify a discrepency which only 26 people notice globaly/week.and you're erroniously concluding that because the global population isn't jumping upndown and celebrating that I must be wrong in my research?
Quote from: profitis on January 03, 2015, 05:06:58 AM
Its not hard to notice the discrepency for discerning individuals and definitely not hard to notice the discrepency once pointed out to someone who didn't see the discrepency by someone who did see the discrepency.your argument is flawed eg. 3000 people read the textbook up to page 5 while twenty read up to page 30.of the twenty who read up to page 30 only 6 are paying attention subtitle concentration cells.of the 6 that are paying attention to subheading concentration cells only one is reading sub-sub-title section on electrode concentration cells.of the one that is paying attention to sub-sub-title electrode concentration cells only 0.25 is paying attention to sub-sub-sub-title gas electrode concentration cells or gas reference electrodes.you're implying that the whole world must jump upndown and celebrate by doing experiments to verify a discrepency which only 26 people notice globaly/week
Wow! I should have you talk to the IRS for me.
Bill
Lol. sarkeizen is turning me into a auditor/lawyer/statistition @pirate.maybe there's more money in those fields than in energy
Quote from: profitis on January 03, 2015, 05:06:58 AM
Its not hard to notice the discrepency
Then lots of people will but nobody has published in an journal in an unambiguous way.
Quote
because the global population isn't jumping upndown and celebrating that I must be wrong in my research?
Nope. I'm saying that if something in science is novel, simple and obvious and accessible to an enormous number of people. The expectation is that it will be published, clearly and unambiguously. However we don't see that so it's unlikely that your ideas are correct. The more obvious you claim things are the more unlikely your claim. However if you lied about how obvious things are...that's cool...you can just admit that you lied again. :)
Also that you should use quotes around the word "research" when referring to the work you do.
Quote frm sarkeizen:'the expectation is that it will be published, clearly and unambiguously.'
This is your biggest mistake.this is your expectation.this is not most peoples expectation
Quote from: profitis on January 03, 2015, 04:50:31 PM
this is not most peoples expectation
Sorry, you have no knowledge or experience with journals. So your opinion is pretty much worthless.
Quote'sorry, you have no knowledge or experience with journals. So your opinion is pretty much worthless.'
End quote
Don't need experience to know that unambiguous ou-proof documents wont pass through judges.ambiguous ou documents will pass through judges like they always do.energy density unfortunately has a lot to do with proofs,energy density under a certain limit will always be open to blame on space-rays and remain ambiguous regardless of quality content (eg.foo's magneto- thermionics valve vs 2lot).energy density over a certain limit will be deemed too scary to allow in a journal.what do you think mr sarkeizen.what would those judges do faced with a horrifying ou-proof applicant.would they panic and reject the paper or would they panic and let the paper through...you say you have experience,tell us what they would do
Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 02:01:45 AM
Don't need experience to know that unambiguous ou-proof documents wont pass through judges.
You have zero experience with the journal submission process. So yeah, you actually do need to know something about it to be able to say what will and won't happen.
If the process becomes a panickess,that's what I'm talking about here because a panickess will be needed for unambiguosity
Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 02:43:17 AM
If the process becomes a panickess
Again, you have so little experience with the process that none of your thoughts on it are important. Especially when your thoughts don't contain real words. :)
So again, you either admit you lied about the difficulty or deal with your ideas being likely stupid...which they are...much like yourself. :)
Lol a textbook discrepency isnot an idea mr sarkeizen.its a discrepency,and it remains a discrepency until someone un-discrepensizes it
Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 03:28:47 AM
a textbook discrepency isnot an idea
Are you saying you have no ideas about OU? Here I was asserting that you have no CORRECT ideas about OU. :)
You're still in the same place. Either you lied (again!) or you're likely wrong.
Let me know when you figure it out. :)
I'm saying a textbook discrepency is not an idea.it is a discrepency.they say such n such behaviour is expected from A when they also say such n such behaviour is banned from A.they say both
Quote from: profitis on January 04, 2015, 11:51:50 PM
I'm saying a textbook discrepency is not an idea.
Are you saying you don't think there's a discrepancy or there is one? If you think there is one, then that's an idea. :)
Let me know when you're not flapping your lips like an idiot....
THEY say compression of gas is expected spontaneously and THEY say decompression of gas is expected spontaneously in seperate steps of the same engine cycle mr sarkeizen don't make me angry now
Quote from: profitis on January 05, 2015, 12:19:32 AM
THEY say
These are all irrelevant from the expectation that a very obvious, easy to demonstrate unambiguously proof of OU is reasonably expected to be published in a journal in an unambiguous way. :)
Sorry you don't get it but you're hardly trying. :)
Yeah well I might just go for a journal mr sarkeizen I might take a chance,maybe for some perverted reason they'l decide nows the time for a nobel two years down the road? I'm getting old(39) and these beautiful south african girls are wondering when I'm going to materialize my endless promises to them.I'l have to teamup with a professori at varsity if I do this.
Quote from: profitis on January 05, 2015, 10:04:16 AM
Yeah well I might just go for a journal
No, what you have simply doesn't work. At best you're peddling experimental error if not fraud. I've already offered cash for achieving something that should be straightforward if you're not lying. :)
Like I said.ima giv it a bash if I feel like giving it a bash.I couldn't care less what you say.the proof is very much in the pudding mr sarkeizen
Quote from: profitis on January 05, 2015, 10:39:11 AM
Like I said.ima giv it a bash if I feel like giving it a bash.
So again, how many thousand dollars would make you "feel" like it? You've answered this question before and you've said it doesn't matter how many I offer for you getting published and failing to get a Nobel. Why? Because "not feeling like it" is just how you are covering up what you really think about your "research". It's not very good, certainly not good enough to get published. :) ...and this is how I know you've been lying to us about your successes.
But please keep telling yourself it's "because you don't feel like it" :)
Because I think its highly unlikely that a nobel will be awarded.its going to be like a lottery chance basicly.I must put effort to get published.teamup with a guy with a lab to arrange a complete paper with experiment results down to a few decimal points recorded over say 5 weeks.this takes efforts mr sarkeizen its like prepping for exams.chances are it'l be for nothing.all this effort to publish a paper just to eliminate corridors for excuses that these judges will use against a low-energy-density device
Quote from: profitis on January 05, 2015, 11:11:23 AM
Because I think its highly unlikely that a nobel will be awarded.
However I've offered money if you don't get it and you've rejected that REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT OFFERED. That's you just making an excuse. :)
Quote
its going to be like a lottery chance basicly.
Only an incredibly stupid person would think that. Which is what you are but still...As of 2010 only 50 Million scholarly papers have been published worldwide in KNOWN HISTORY. A lottery has about 1 in 13 Million odds of winning. Unless you think the Nobel group considers EVERY PAPER EVER WRITTEN EVERY YEAR - then you are clearly wrong. Please think before speaking...or better yet assume what you are going to say about math is incredibly stupid and don't say anything. :)
Quote
I must put effort to get published.teamup with a guy with a lab to arrange a complete paper with experiment results down to a few decimal points recorded over say 5 weeks.
Yawn. You have been offered more money than a lot of graduate students have to settle for to do far more precise experiments than you will run over a much longer time period.
Quotechances are it'l be for nothing.
Yes, because the odds are you will not be able to show anything ever. :)
If you want to get some money do some work if you're more concerned about saving your ego from being kicked in the teeth then please keep making excuses like "I don't feel like it waaaaaaaaahhhhhh!" :)
Quote frm sarkeizen:
'Yes, because the odds are you will not be able to show anything ever. :)'
End quote
Lol. the world is changing by the hour due to that one tiny discrepency in that textbook
Quote from: profitis on January 09, 2015, 06:17:20 AM
the world is changing by the hour due to that one tiny discrepency in that textbook
Every time you say something like that, you make your hypothesis less believable. Again it's just the math - ever thought of learning any?
Quote frm sarkeizen :'gain it's just the math'
Unquote
Precisely (:
You should know
Quote from: profitis on January 09, 2015, 02:32:33 PM
You should know
I know the more you stress how your ideas are gaining ground rapidly. The more likely your hypothesis is wrong. :)
Quote frm sarkeizen:' gaining ground rapidly.hypothesis is wrong'
Unquote
Lol.even your own contradictions are on a collision course.bayes rule (:
Quote from: profitis on January 10, 2015, 12:36:51 AM
Lol.even your own contradictions are on a collision course.bayes rule (:
The more you stress and stress and cheerlead and advertise that your ideas are clear, unambiguous, allow for no reasonable objection and getting so popular that almost everyone knows.....
The more likely we will see a journal article published which is clear and unambiguously claims OU is both real and realizable. However no such article has been published. Hence the more likely the hypothesis is false.
If you want to use Bayes rule...you first need to know what it is. :)
Quote frm sark: 'getting so popular that everyone knows'
Damn straight
Quote frm sark:'However no article has been published'
Somebody better do that (:
Quote from: profitis on January 11, 2015, 03:32:56 AM
Somebody better do that (:
The most likely case appears to be that nobody will. :)
So keep on saying "I don't feel like it" and I'l figure out something else to do with my money. :)
5000 peanuts has nothing to do with my yea or nea mr sarkeizen.if I make a decision its spontaneous I'm a leo
Raise it to 50000grand and I'l do it fucking right now (:
If publishing has its benefits besides a noble I'l do it for free anyways
Quote from: profitis on January 11, 2015, 02:09:59 PM
Raise it to 50000grand and I'l do it fucking right now (:
50 Million? It's nice that you think I'm so well off but no I don't have that kind of money.
Sorry 50000 dollars yes (:.I see world events are moving very fast right now mr sarkeizen.your theory that a nobel would awarded for real mcoy is getting more realistic
Quote from: profitis on January 11, 2015, 03:05:00 PM
Sorry 50000 dollars
I've offered $5K provided your article clearly and unambiguously states that OU is a reality. That it gets published in a journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or more and you don't win a Nobel within 2 years. I could offer $50K but that's betting with cash I don't have just lying around. :)
That's considerably more money than you would get on Shark Tank.
Quote from: sarkeizen on January 11, 2015, 03:29:19 PM
That's considerably more money than you would get on Shark Tank.
I'm out.
Bill
Mmm. do you perhaps work for the nobel comitee mr sarkeizen or work in science high-society circles? Tell me a bit bowt yourself
Quote from: profitis on January 11, 2015, 03:52:29 PM
Mmm. do you perhaps work for the nobel comitee mr sarkeizen or work in science high-society circles? Tell me a bit bowt yourself
I have 5 grand that says you can't get an article published which clearly claims an overunity effect in a journal with the agreed upon ranking without winning a noble in 2 years....and you...just have excuses.
Well why don't you just pretend that your on the noble comitee mr sarkeizen.maybe that'l motivate my lazy ass.(Is he? Isn't he?)
Quote from: profitis on February 02, 2015, 02:04:16 PM
Well why don't you just pretend that your on the noble comitee mr sarkeizen.maybe that'l motivate my lazy ass.(Is he? Isn't he?)
Well for one I'm not Swedish.
Anyway playing pretend is all you will ever do. :)
Quote from: Charlie Brown ARN on April 16, 2005, 01:23:52 AM
I have known of SEAS power a long time. First I reached Dr. Ted Loder who was the admin secretary who told me that my device did not qualify for their development because it makes too little power. I believe that this low power result is still scientifically revolutionary because it was created in a stirred inert liquid bath with no temperature gradient. I believe the diode array could meet the other important condition that SEAS power uses to select acceptible prospects, that three labs independently confirm claims of energy production by superior processes.[my expression]. Therefore, I would like to negotiate special arrangements with SEAS to accomodate excellent reproducibility and low power output. I tried to meet Dr. Steven Greer when he passed through one of Maui's general airports in ~1998 but failed. I flew to The people's conference on free energy [approx title] in Portland OR late September '04. My impression was that the people hosting the conference to individually different degrees want to regulate the release and schedule the application of any extremely cheap energy device. I don't think much of that is needed. I met Dr. Greer at this conference and felt that he was dedicated to finding, developing, and promoting superior energy sources. I further felt that his colleagues respected him for this. Last I heard, SEAS would get the million dollar payment to bestow on a superior energy machine inventor if the machine impressed a wide audience including the backers of SEAS power and was (perhaps non exclusively) licensed to SEAS power. SEAS also offered to help protect eligible inventors from people of ill will. To me, these terms are generous, though they not helpful now during prototype development when money is needed, an outcome realistically short of fairy tale living happily ever after wonderful.
Aloha, Charlie
Be smart- Eliminate all the patents and those that wish to profit from your free energy device and post everything about it as proof of concept as OPEN SOURCE. Now the cat is out of the bag and the whole world knows who the true inventor is. Sure you won't make any cash this way but others who would like you to talk more about it might pay you to be a team member. They might even pay to have you on their side if they wish to patent it themselves.