Do you still have faith in any of the big guns out there in the OU community? Who is for real, who is full of bs?
I had some faith in Bearden; no more. Frolov too I no longer believe. Bedini? Oh please!
You do you believe? Who do you not? Tell us.
They are all tried and tested bull shiters.
I do believe in them but not all of them. There is a reason why we you should believe in them. First it was patented, why should someone waste their money for making a patent that shouldnt work. Second, almost all ou devices works on similar way. The most common is using a sharp rising and falling voltage and current. Bedini, Aviso, Richard Willis and many others are using that technique to extract ambient energy.
I blieve in rossi,he's my fave champ.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 11, 2014, 08:54:04 AM
Do you still have faith in any of the big guns out there in the OU community? Who is for real, who is full of bs?
I had some faith in Bearden; no more. Frolov too I no longer believe. Bedini? Oh please!
You do you believe? Who do you not? Tell us.
I believe that the most credible person is Philip J. Hardcastle. :)
My hero is Mr. Wayne Travis, see http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/ (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/) and http://overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/ (http://overunity.com/10596/hydro-differential-pressure-exchange-over-unity-system/) .
His personality is unbeatable (he even can split into multiple personae) and his word power is phenomenal (there is nothing which he can not twist).
The power output of his machines is not yet optimal, but I pray for his efforts (because he asks us to do so: "Join us, Watch us, Pray for our Efforts" http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/who-we-are (http://www.hydroenergyrevolution.com/index.php/who-we-are) ).
Greetings, Conrad
The ones I believe in are the ones that are not discussed or appear here. About 90% of Free Energy research is under the radar.
Mark
true markdansie.and that 90% is more frightening than this bunch here.I believe this is part of the reason for low oil price
As far as "Gurus" are concerned, i still have respect for Bearden and J.Newman. Their theories were like a paradigm shift for me that let me believe overunity may be possible. I did try Bedini's pulse motors and solid states. Impressive device for efficiency, but not overunity. Even Aaron murakami eventually admit that swapping batteries will prolong run time, but they will both run out of juice eventually. I wasn't sure if this was intentional or a slip of the tongue in the video I saw. Honestly, i'm kinda burned out with Bedini devices. I tried just about every configuration I could think of, but it wouldn't work. The best BEMF spike (energy return) I got was only 50-60% from the energized coil in any configuration of coils including bucking coils. This is a lot lower than I intially expected. I just don't see how pulse motors/solid states can achieve overunity.
While we're in the "Guru" subject, I really think Don Smith was the real deal. It is unfortunate, however, that he wasn't straight forward with his lectures so no successful replication was done. The reason I believe his device works is because in one of the videos, he was giving a lecture about his device. Some of the audience decided to bring their own light bulbs without him knowing. He hesitated and resisted the pressure from the audience, but it appears that he didn't really had a choice but allowed them to plug the bulbs and it worked !!
Quote from: pomodoro on December 11, 2014, 08:54:04 AM
Do you still have faith in any of the big guns out there in the OU community? Who is for real, who is full of bs?
I had some faith in Bearden; no more. Frolov too I no longer believe. Bedini? Oh please!
You do you believe? Who do you not? Tell us.
I wouldn't classify him as a "guru", but I can tell you this, if Russ Gries ever posts a video of a self runner and he's clearly not joking, you can take it to the bank it is the real deal. I just hope I live long enough to see it.
Quote from: profitis on December 11, 2014, 04:02:26 PM
true markdansie.and that 90% is more frightening than this bunch here.
Because something you know nothing about has to be better than something you know something about? :)
Quote
I believe this is part of the reason for low oil price
That's more because you are an idiot.
i believe, i believe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w
;D
Quote from sarkeizen:
'Because something you know nothing about has to be better than something you know something about? :)'
End quote
Yes guys with expensive government labs are capable of better research than most of the humans here on these websites.those labs are unlikely to publish their overunity findings.
Quote from sarkeizen:
'That's more because you are an idiot.'
End quote
I disagree here.can you elaborate
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 01:28:34 AM
Yes guys with expensive government labs are
How do you know they have expensive labs. You don't know ANYTHING about them right?
QuoteI disagree here.
You seem to go out of your way to convince yourself of stupid things.
@sarkeizen I assume that people who own countries have expensive labs yes,and better info yes.well if I was incharge of opec I would also push prices down,way down,so as to discourage competition from frei energie and discourage research into frei energie
Quote from: Dog-One on December 11, 2014, 08:52:19 PM
I wouldn't classify him as a "guru", but I can tell you this, if Russ Gries ever posts a video of a self runner and he's clearly not joking, you can take it to the bank it is the real deal. I just hope I live long enough to see it.
Russ is an honest and talented guy. If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.
What's the general opinion regarding JLN and his overunity replications?
Jn has got some good shit going some crappy shit too.30% credibility I would say.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 12, 2014, 03:53:30 AM
What's the general opinion regarding JLN and his overunity replications?
JLN has a good budget to spend building shiny but useless objects.
Quote from: pomodoro on December 12, 2014, 03:53:30 AM
What's the general opinion regarding JLN and his overunity replications?
Mine is that JLN has been improving with time. At first he seemed to replicate whatever anyone
said was overunity and I felt that he was not serious in his critical analysis. But he has kept at it
and now he seems to simplify his experiments and does look at things critically. He uses modern
instrumentation which allows an uncluttered view of what the experiment consists of making any
additional replication by us a lot easier. His circuit designs seem to end up being high quality and
I have to admit I've seen a lot of very interesting things on his web site.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 02:00:48 AM
@sarkeizen I assume that people who own countries
What? Who *owns* a country? You mean a king? Like all the secret X labs of Andorra?
Quote
well if I was incharge of opec I would also push prices down,way down,so as to discourage competition from frei energie and discourage research into frei energie
Only because you're an idiot and don't know how to evaluate risks.
Quote from sarkeizen:' Who *owns* a country? You mean a king? Like all the secret X labs of Andorra?'
End quote
Yeah
Quote from sarkeizen:'Only because you're an idiot and don't know how to evaluate risks'
End quote
I disagree with this
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 01:37:18 PM
Yeah
So you are claiming that a country with a GNP smaller than a number of corporations has secret labs?
One can accomplish much with just a one million-dollar lab sure @sarkeizen
Quote from: profitis on December 12, 2014, 03:19:14 PM
One can accomplish much with just a one million-dollar lab sure @sarkeizen
So you've refuted your own argument. Before it required people owning countries now anyone with a million to spare will do.
Quote from: MarkE on December 12, 2014, 02:53:11 AM
Russ is an honest and talented guy. If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.
See I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. It requires the odds of free energy to be within a few orders of magnitude of Russ's error rate. If the odds of finding free energy are closer to 1:10^100000000000000000000000000 then Russ can have as many good results as he wants and each time the smart money is on ignoring him.
Quote from: sarkeizen on December 12, 2014, 03:35:10 PM
See I'm pretty sure this isn't correct. It requires the odds of free energy to be within a few orders of magnitude of Russ's error rate. If the odds of finding free energy are closer to 1:10^100000000000000000000000000 then Russ can have as many good results as he wants and each time the smart money is on ignoring him.
The odds against an honest and talented person like Russ really thinking they have found something extraordinary when they have not are pretty huge. They are not nearly as huge as the odds against anyone discovering a new energy source. But they are still pretty big because Russ is both talented and honest. Honesty drives people towards checking their work.
I neither stated nor suggested that just because Russ may one day think that he's found an incredibly improbable thing that he would be right. The odds against that are as they would be for anyone hard to even assess. I stated:
QuoteQuotewhatever he has will deserve a close look
That's what we should do when people who are bright and diligent think they see something unusual. Most of the time we learn about mistakes and that helps us do better avoiding mistakes in the future. On rare occasions we confirm a discovery.
Hahahahahahaha What a question.
OK, try this, no one after 1750.
Except Tesla and all OUers who share open source.
wattsup
The world is at the brink of world war. Opec is dropping the price of oil in order to undermine the profits of fracking. Petroleum anchored economies are poised to self detonate. The powers that be have already usurped, (and planned the distribution of), the benefits of a post petroleum world, and are preparing to rid the world of all who are judged unworthy to be allowed to share it with them.
Your question concerning OU gurus and trust might encourage more meaningful answers after the fall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW5OGWfqJc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYW5OGWfqJc)
I hear the movie, San Andreas, starring Dwayne Johnson, has leaked on the net....it is planned for release next summer. Interesting trailer.
TS
Quote from: MarkE on December 12, 2014, 03:55:17 PM
That's what we should do when people who are bright and diligent think they see something unusual.
...as long as the outcome is likely. If the outcome is not likely (or exceptionally unlikely) then you are always wasting your time. Your "learning about mistakes" argument is a) moving the goalposts somewhat and b) has exactly the same decision making flaw as the idea that every idea from someone who meets your criteria for "brightness" and "diligence" absolutely necessitates attention.
Quote from: sarkeizen on December 12, 2014, 08:26:32 PM
...as long as the outcome is likely. If the outcome is not likely (or exceptionally unlikely) then you are always wasting your time. Your "learning about mistakes" argument is a) moving the goalposts somewhat and b) has exactly the same decision making flaw as the idea that every idea from someone who meets your criteria for "brightness" and "diligence" absolutely necessitates attention.
Are you conflating: The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation? You might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists. Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own. They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them. They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.
My argument never said wealthy labs are exclusive privy to 2lot violations @sarkeizen,my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot vs peasants who stumble onto 2lot violations.thus markdansie's 90% will be mostly wealthy government labs yes.
We can even include 1lot violations in my argument.virtualy nil peasants will be able to detect a 1lot violation but a government lab will have the machines to be able to do this.government labs can go very very far with theses freaky phenomena.they're licenced to play with shit that you and me will be thrown in jail for being in posession thererof
Quote from: MarkE on December 13, 2014, 01:25:52 AM
The chances of free energy are about as low as FTL travel with results that are carefully checked and do not make sense warrant further investigation?
You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again. Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable.
QuoteYou might note that the incredibly improbable was perceived by some very bright, well-trained, and diligent scientists. Even though based on likelihoods they rightfully distrusted their incorrect observations of apparent FTL they did the right thing scientifically by both pursuing their own verifications and calling upon colleagues to perform their own. They did not callously declare that because the odds that their observations were somehow faulty were high to just ignore them. They did not declare getting to the bottom of things was just a waste of time.
One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c. Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all. So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result. Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.
Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people. Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate. So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.
Next?
Quote from: profitis on December 13, 2014, 03:36:06 AM
my argument implied that the probabilities for finding and researching and expanding on 2lot violations goes up a lot
Yay you are learning to actually make an argument. Too bad you have already asserted that people on their own are almost there. You claim that anyone can easily demonstrate an entirely unambiguous 2LOT violation. If true then these labs have all already found them. However this leads to a problem of zero published research. The amount of money fed into research also increases the number papers produced. No 2LOT violation papers. So under your assumptions we need to at least slightly discredit the idea that 2LOT violations are as easy as you say.
:)
Quote from: sarkeizen on December 13, 2014, 01:58:31 PM
You're adding too many vague terms to the argument and changing it yet again.
No, I have held my end of the discussion constant. You objected to "taking a closer look" were an honest and talented researcher to report an extraordinary observation of apparent free energy. As I have read your argument it is: The likelihood of an apparent free energy observation being correct is so low that it is a waste of time to pay any attention to such observations. I have stated reasons why we should pay attention to such observations
especially because they represent something that is almost guaranteed to be false. There is nothing vague about those reasons: Experiment practice is a very imperfect thing. The better we understand how we get results that are wrong, or almost certainly wrong, the better equipped we are to reduce experiment errors. In the very exceptional case we also come upon a discovery. The OPERA experiment exemplifies how something as simple as a poor cable connection can foul-up very expensive and time consuming experiments.
The specific statement I made that you have argued against is:
QuoteQuoteRuss is an honest and talented guy. If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.
Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable. One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c. Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all. So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result. Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.
Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.
Quote
Perhaps this is simply my limited sampling of the world but here most people are not employed in an a experiment to determine if 2LOT can be violated. By contrast more people are asked to spend some of their time examining CLAIMS of OU from various people. Several orders of magnitude more by my estimation but again that just might be with whom I associate. So your attempt to use this to argue a general principle is invalid.
Next?
These are all extraneous issues that you have introduced. Kindly take the statement I made and only that statement as the issue under discussion.
Quote from: MarkE on December 13, 2014, 07:27:22 PM
The specific statement I made that you have argued against is:
Quote from: Magical Me
Originally this was about if it is worth someones time to pay attention to a CLAIM made by someone else which is entirely (or significantly) improbable. One of the purposes of the OPERA experiment was to determine the speed of neutrinos as a test of special relativity the expectation, as I understand it was that they would be slightly < c. Yes they could have rationally identified the results indicating FTL neutrinos as erroneous but that would have left them in the same place as if they had not done the experiment at all. So there are layers upon layers of reasons that they pursue a result. Reasons entirely irrelevant to this discussion - for example I speak from experience that people managing experiments don't like it when people just shrug their shoulders when asked for results.
Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.
Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent". It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.
Does this reasonably approximate your position?
Quote from: sarkeizen on December 13, 2014, 09:22:46 PM
Well if that isn't vague, I am not sure what is.
Then you are trying very hard to misunderstand or your argument is poorly phrased. Your argument appears to be that it is GENERALLY (or perhaps universally but I try to make the argument harder for me rather than easy) the right thing for anyone to do is spend time/money examining any claim to free energy so long as the person meets whatever you deign as "brilliant and diligent". It is generally the right thing to do because it will significantly improve future experiments.
Does this reasonably approximate your position?
My statement repeated once again was very simple:
QuoteQuoteRuss is an honest and talented guy. If someday he thinks that he has got the goods working then whatever he has will deserve a close look.
Note the predicates: honest and talented.
Note the conditional: thinks
Note the proposed action: look
I have explained why I find such activity worthwhile even if what Russ or someone suitably honest and talented like Russ reports would still be almost certainly wrong: There is either something to learn about how they went wrong, or in the case of great exceptions learn of a discovery.
The only living human that I am sure that I can trust is ME.
Having had a long old man's lifetime to notice every which way that I have ever lied or been deceptive in any way, in all the excitement I lost count myself, I know that I can trust myself completely in respect to OU (should I somehow ever ;) accidently stumble across such a device).
I know every way, and for what all reasons, I have ever lied. Mostly out of cowardice.
I know that I would never lie to anyone about any OU device. Unless you are a MIB and I needed to lie to to you to keep from you slitting my throat. Then I will tell you that up is down and right is left. I can't devote all the profits to help the poor of the Earth unless I am alive to do it.
Everybody else is a liar until they are proved honest beyond any doubt.
A real OU device would only be worth USD 200 Trillion added over a 20 year patent lifetime.
CANGAS 108
It's simply a matter of choice. You don't know if OU exists but two facts makes a bet fruitful .
First, we are already discussing OU and history proved that mny such things being disputed were in fact lost reality. Second we have a resonable amount of patented and documented devices. I don't care if most of them are hoaxes.
Based on two above facts I can say :
" it is wise to BET that free energy is real thing, rather then unresonably state it doesn't exists"
In the first case we have a hope which leads us to work in this direction, while in other case ..why have you ever been on this forum ?
sorry, I'm the man who never learned how to speak well in english
No published papers on 2lot violations @sarkeizen?you've got to be kidding.there's plenty despite most labs unwillingness to throw such research into public arena.ie throw it away
Quote from: MarkE on December 13, 2014, 10:06:58 PM
There is either something to learn about how they went wrong, or in the case of great exceptions learn of a discovery.
False dichotomy (and/or you're kind of shifting the subject of who learns what or perhaps you're using the word "learn" in some idiosyncratic sense). :) Try again.