Do anybody know about this invention made by a french named Claude Poher.
http://www.universons.com/ (http://www.universons.com/)
The site need a login request for special informations, but you have some documents on his invention in free access.
Here is a brief introduction on Claude Poher (taken on his website):
Born in 1936, in France (Bretagne), parent of
Alain POHER (who was President of the French Senate for a quarter century)
Engineer in space research.
Engineer in electronics.
Ph D in astronomy-astrophysics.
33 years of scientific career in space research
in CNES (Centre National d?Etudes Spatiales, the French NASA).
Successively responsible of several services
in this space research public establishment :
? Research programs in space astronomy,
? Research programs in space robotics,
? Research programs in space sounding rockets,
? Advanced, long term research programs in space technology,
Claude POHER has also directed several space research programs
conducted in international cooperation,
from lunar exploration to space stations, and also
about the exploration of planets.
He was in charge of the French national studies
for application of the nuclear energy to future
civilian space missions.
Claude POHER was also ? chairman ? of numerous sessions of
international congresses about astronautics,
in the domain of astronomical research,
advanced missions studies, and interstellar missions.
Claude POHER is an experienced private pilot with 45 years of practice
he has a deep aeronautical formation.
He created and directed, in CNES, in 1977 / 1978, the GEPAN, official French service
dedicated to the analysis of the UFO observation reports from the population,
This service still exists 27 years later (only official service of this type in the world actually).
GEPAN = ? Groupe d?Etude des Ph?nom?nes A?rospatiaux Non identifi?s ?
The space activity of Claude POHER have been rewarded by :
The National Order of Merit
The AAAF astronautical prize
The CNES medal
Claude POHER is a member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA).
Bye
ER
@EnergieLibre
Thanks for the link.
Sounds very interesting.
BTW: You are French. Are you not?
Best
Hi,
Quote from: NerzhDishual on August 19, 2007, 12:32:01 PM
@EnergieLibre
BTW: You are French. Are you not?
yes i am.
Hi all,
Is anyone besides EnergieLibre and NerzhDishual working or at least reading on this subject?
In my view, this topic is happening once in a lifetime or less often than that! It will be historical and it is happening now!
No clicks heard?
Next is a part of an earlier message I posted in ?The Grand Proverbial Goose Chase?? thread (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3070.30/topicseen.html) but nobody replied. Nobody seems to care about the whole subject. Beats me if I understand why. I refuse to think that you don?t see what really lies right in front of your hands and what Mr. Poher already gave to all of us.
?It seems that all of us may have a real job in free energy, thanks to EnergieLibre!!!
It is somehow painful to read http://www.universons.com (account needs to be created, many pages, physics in theory, equations and experiments, tricky logic etc. etc.) but the reward is almost un-imaginable.
The universons? theory holds and this is THE free energy I was looking for. It seems absolutely real! It has all the features I was long expecting: theory (a coherent one), explanation of various facts and solution to historical puzzles, principle experiments relative easily verifiable, you name it! Last, but not least, IT IS a new source of energy, as I predicted to be necessary in one of my previous post. I?m still perplexed after couple of days of reading? It will change the whole humanity in a matter of few years, if real.
I understand there are enough physicists here. The theory of universons has, imho, some weak points but it may be the case that my understanding is not complete or the weak points I?ve seen are explainable and maybe they are already detailed elsewhere. But the already existing experimental results clearly show that the main course is on track, so any weak point must have a solution. Anyway, my intention would be to contact sooner or later Mr. Claude Poher but firstly I?d like to know if anyone is interested in deeply discussing the subject over here and eventually refining together a list of questions. I intend to discuss with Mr. Poher on my behalf, without any connection with overunity.com, not because it is something wrong with the site but because clearly Mr. Poher is trying to take advantage of the results of his life-time work so if he refuses me, maybe he will respond to someone else around here.
Please reply on the above in the dedicated thread?? (meaning this thread)
Is anyone interested in taking the subject further?
Is anyone sharing the same view of the utmost importance of the theory and experiments of Mr. Claude Poher?
Tx EnergieLibre,
Tx everyone,
Tinu
.
Thanks argona369,
I will start experimenting, hopefully as soon as next week.
I fully believe that the first applications will start as soon as possible under the granted patent but those applications will cost heavy money and they will be copyrighted. Meanwhile, well ?let?s say that there are more ways to get to the same results.
The effect on the weighted lever is definitely not a repulsive kick (like Lorentz or something). In supporting this, there is another video (in the protected area) showing that nothing happens with a similar setup but without the ?emitter?, as Mr. Poher calls it.
Also, the force is felt on a distance of 150 meters at least (that distance was tested). No electromagnetic impulse can travel that much and remain coherent. Of course, laser does but this is not laser. In fact, the ?universons beam? crosses through matter (and it accelerates matter) without loosing its properties. Now, that?s really something to reflect upon!
All in all, the effects are genuine and I intend to replicate them by all means under my power.
I can not set-up a cryogenic enclosure and I surely don?t have for the time being the necessary equipments and enough knowledge to bake superconductors but that can be done too. Let?s see what happens in the future.
Respectfully,
Tinu
.
Cliff,
This is not a joke. It may be anything else, but it is not a joke under any circumstances.
And I?m not trying to convince you.
I was reading and working during almost three continuous days through the theory and equations behind it. It holds. There are some approximations and there will be some adjustments to be made in the future (in my view) but most of the equations as well as the logic behind fit together in a nice huge picture, from lab scale to galaxies and beyond. And it starts from electron and sub-atomic particles. Second Newton (F=m*a) is not only theoretically deduced but it is even corrected for already observed deviations at solar scale and at galactic scale. Even the attraction constant (G) is deduced along with F=G*M1*M2/sqr(r). What can I say? This is heavy, serious stuff. No jokes, no fakes, no amateurism, nothing of this kind. Not even a shadow of it.
What I?m doing here, is pointing out toward the right direction in what I believe to change the way humankind will look in matter of years, at most. Free energy is coming along with this discovery. Like I said above, I?m not trying to convince you, but to keep alive (for this very moment) what I consider to be the most promising thread of the moment. (A thread which almost went unnoticed, otherwise). Similar theories exist and, as physicist, I am in direct contact with several of the sharpest and prominent minds of the world today. (I?m not one of them but I try to do my best). Some of them are clearly approaching free energy but their experimental results are still very pale in comparison with what Mr. Poher demonstrates. That?s why Mr. Poher can?t talk with many. What he has discovered and patented is simply overwhelming.
What you see in the two public pages is almost nothing but a glimpse.
It?s fine with me if you are not attracted to the subject.
I will experiment by myself anyway but the effects are soooo small at first that one can not progress with ease. It is though normal that the effects are very small. If it was otherwise, it had been long discovered.
So, what I am doing here for the moment is nothing more than inviting very determined and skilled fellows to join what is supposed to be a team effort. I won?t do it entirely by myself because I most probably can?t do it all along. I?m specialized in some areas and that?s all. I?m only one person with limited ideas, resources and time.
It?s fine with everyone who doesn?t want to get involved. There is no offense in anyone making his/her own choice.
In the invitation for support and for joining this thread, I started with the tubes section because experiments with tubes are possibly among the successfully approach I foresee achievable in a regular/modest lab or at home.
But this is not the only reason. The tube fellows experiment with tubes mostly because tubes were also pointed by SM. That?s why the tube interest exists right now. Although I don?t see at the very present any connection between SM and Mr. Poher, it is possible that the two have the same deep roots. Anyway, Mr. Poher comes forward with almost everything he had discovered while SM with almost nothing?
For the time being, please let the word spreading around.
I?ll keep this thread alive until more people come together. If a senior member (and good experimentalist) would like to take the lead here, I?ll step back, fully supporting him/her from background.
EnergieLibre, I owe this to you.
Can you tell us more about the subject?
Are you somehow in contact with Mr. Poher?
Can you keep us updated on the evolution in France?
Please tell us more about you and about the subject, if possible.
Tx everyone,
Tinu
Ok tinu let's play together.
I've found this this forum because i'm interested in the Universons. I'm french. I've got a very basic background in physics (bac S or A-level in physics). However i believe that what a fool have understood another fool can understand it as well ;D.
First i'd like to understand the information and keep what i understood and share it.
Therefore an information structure is needed.
We can keep exchanging ideas on this forum-thread and create other structure like a wiki-universons and/or a universons-mailing-list. What do you think about it ?
And i've got a question regarding the theory :
The universons are an isotropic flux moving at speed light. When an object is moving in one direction, will it "capture" more universons in this direction ? i guess yes.
to simplify the situation :
Be A and B , 2 sources of universons and C a universon-collector between A and B , moving toward B :
A____C------>B
C is expected to collect/pass through more universons coming from B. Is it right ?
P.S : PM me if you want my e- address.
Welcome aboard, Provencale!
I apologize for not being able to speak the French language. I barely read some, with a dictionary close to me?
Regarding the wiki-universon structure, I really don?t now what to do at present. This is a public thread. I don?t want to impinge the life-time work and the intellectual proprietary rights of Mr. Poher in any way, neither to create any legal difficulties or embarrassing situations for overunity.com.
Yet, as soon as Mr. Poher will conduct a net-survey about Universons, I am pretty certain that he will find about us and hopefully he will see that there is a large interest and an ongoing and well-intended effort in replicating his discovery and effects (which should be all-right from all points of view: legally, morally etc.). Hopefully, Mr. Poher will then take the right decisions is supporting us in the ways he will consider appropriate. Those decisions must logically depend on our overall behavior, respect and decency. I therefore suggest everyone posting on the subject to keep all of these aspects in mind.
However, my personal file about Universons is currently 350+ pages and counting. I will not post the pdf files inhere, because it is clearly stated that any use of those materials or part of them without the written agreement of the author is strictly prohibited. I do not have such an agreement. I therefore recommend those files not being posted by somebody else either (unless the agreement is granted, of course) but kept for personal reading and for personal use. All documents are very well written and you already know enough physics to follow them, I promise. All it takes is some patience. Some explanations/files are in French language and I suppose they are much easier to read for you.
What do we have for now is the possibility for every one of us interested in the topics to create an account on http://www.universons.com (the access is automatically granted) and to lecture the files and/or to locally save them for later reading.
We also have the patent, which is a public document and I think I?ll copy it here in a short while, if no justified objections from the site administrator or from other members exist. By the way, the patent is in French only. Other than that language aspect, it is very self-explanatory. You may want to read it first. Also, if you?ll accept for the future, some of us (the English language speakers) might have some questions about the exact meaning of various words.
The question you have is very profound!
To my understanding, the answer is yes, it will capture more universons. But that would be just for a tiny fraction of time (when you start accelerating the C body). Then, the captured and emitted universons balance, becoming equal.
Actually, there are several close related questions that I couldn?t find myself the right answer up to now. One would be: what is the difference felt by C if a) A and B are massive masses, present there and b) there are no masses present at all around C. In a), there is an anisotropic flux of universons between A->B and between B->A; so, the ?wind? is blowing harder on the A-B direction; but this is not a ?regular wind?; it blows from the front and from the back in the same time. (It?s like an electric current: electrons flow in one direction and ions or holes in the other direction, except that here we have universons in both directions and they do not cancel each other). Anyway, the question is: what would be the effect of the presence of this ?wind? on C body? According to the equations of Mr. Poher, C-body should weight more in a) than in b). Slightly more, but still measurable.
I?m not sure I?m correct in my above deductions and that?s why we need to firstly discuss among us, and then to get in contact with Mr. Poher himself or with one of his closest team members.
But for now I still have to read&study more.
Tinu
P.S. I?ll surely need your e-mail (tx for offering it) but lets collect and exchange contacts when a group nucleus forms here, ok?
Here is the patent (BREVET D?INVENTION, ?DISPOSITIF PROPULSEUR PAR ACCELERATION DE PARTICULES ET APPLICATIONS DUDIT DISPOSITIF?) granted to Mr. Claude Poher.
Great paper, enjoy it!
If anyone has the English version, please post it.
Tx,
Tinu
Hi All,
Probably this patent will be in English language but we have to wait till it is fully available at EPO:
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO2007093699&F=0
DEVICE FOR PROPELLING PARTICLES BY MEANS OF ACCELERATION AND APPLICATIONS THEREOF
Publication Date: 2007-08-23 !
Gyula
This sounds interesting. However the site is very inconvenient. I could not open the PDFs even after putting in the password.
The site allows access without checking the email, you can fill in anything and whats the point of password protecting the pdfs when you are giving away the password?
The video shows something moving with a jerk and some dust for a split second, nothing very special, but he says that he will put up a video of that thing flying very soon. So lets hope.
@energielibre
Comment ca vas? Je r?side proche de Montr?al.
Could not help but notice your avatar of one of Daniel Pomerleau's circuits.
There is a thread here on his work. I also put up two posts aftrer seeing his demonstrations. Just mind boggling.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,393.msg27270.html#msg27270
I was talking to an engineer on the Jesse McQueen's Power Generator thread and discussing about the source of universal energy and I mentioned to him about this thread and the inventor.
I read most all of the Claude Poher's site, all that is accessible.
I would like to make one recommendation whenever such type of patents are being introduced, formulated and presented to the general public is that the information web site should have a section that can provide more simplified explanations. I am afraid that given the higher complexity and the inventors desire to show his knowledge level, which is impressive to say the least, he will loose interest from the majority if it is not vulgarized to a lower level.
He can have a section for the scientific and academic community but he should put another section for the regular public, regular inventors that can use his findings. Plus, I am sure alot of the scientific and academic community would prefer this also, although they would not say it out load.
We really want to understand this.
Being smart is helping others become smart from their level onwards. You should not expect people to just jump to the level of the inventors expertise and continue from there. The inventor has to come down to our level and push us up. That's the way knowledge transmission will work otherwise people will just become discouraged and lose interest.
Something like "Universons for Dummies".
All the best.
wattsup
;D ;D ;D Universon's.
Why is this all locked down so much?
I hate to say it, but Quite simply because the arguments do not stand up. It's nothing more than yet more quantum field conjecture.
Which would be OK, if quantum field theory was correct in the first place. However if you put any quantum physicist on the spot they will be forced to admit that quantum physics has more in common with philosophy than verifiable science.
For those who want to expand their knowledge of quantum field theory, then feel free to read the universon site, but if you are looking for something that is practical in the real world of energy production.
Then look elsewhere.
Although... the invention is interesting.
A high density target material, used to shift particle by non subluminal means. Classical physics calls it Quantum Tunnelling.
Proven by Prof.Dr Gunter Nimtz a number of years ago when transfered Mozart 40 by encoding it (smoothing the quantum wave packets) created when he fired photons through a target, and transmitted this from a Point A to point B by non subluminal means.
You will notice his scope readings in his experiments are that of the Kick and scalar (soliton) waves observed in the TPU experiments.
If he lost the Universons junk, then he has some promising research relating to density shift of matter, by holding onto yet another version of quantum field theory he is making himself to appear to be as much of a time waster as those spending years working on Superstringtheory.
If you want to understand density shift of matter, have a read of this. http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2816.0.html
It explains the same thing and more, in plain English (where possible) and does not require you to re-write the laws of physics to achieve the same results.
I am not saying he is wrong in the finite range he limits himself too, but their is no need to be so long winded, double talking and secretive about it all.
@13thHouR
Sorry to say but you are flat wrong to assume this as a banal theory. You don't hold a theory between your index and thumb. Then get permission from upper government levels to go out and patent it, then show your theory lifting a weight and proving it to academia. At one point or another, you have to agree it as being a fact.
Granted the web site is not Grand Central Station, this confirms the inventor is in total control over all the material and the way he shows it is typical of a very intelligent senior person not giving any importance to the look or presentation but more to the substance. Centered text, english and french on the same page, etc., just typical and normal. When they get someone with Web savvy in there, you'll see the changes quickly. But everything has to start somewhere. I am sure they run a tight ship at this early stage and I just hope they are ready soon for some substantial growth. Man, you can make a generator turn with this.
Also, granted Universons is a terrible name in every marketing sense, and the message is not yet clear, but you know what, ever since Tesla loved to call it "ether", I'd say call it what you will. As long as it has a name, has been identified and has been publicized, it's only a good thing. Nothing bad about it. I would have called it something like "Enites". One or Two syllables maximum, not four. Something that can be easilly and well said in all languages. Ouch.
Anyways, what you and I think is not important, but in 10-20 years from now, if no one comes up with a more appropriate appellation, it will be known as the most credible explanation of OU. So hey, I'm all for it. We're finally on the map. Now, when asked where is the Free Energy coming from, we can ask, "Have you heard of Universons?". This opens the formal door to OU. It does not mean other doors will not be open as well.
I'd say something else. Anyone with some brains and the availability would contact the inventor and humbly (not arrogantly) ask to be taught the finer principles so you can become their representative in your country. But do it quick cause someone else will do it if you don't. This is what I call a ground floor opportunity of universal proportions.
So whoever said this is history being written, I imagine they are right.
All the best.
wattsup
ADDED: As of this date, typing "universons" on Google and this thread would be #4.
Just my opinion of the documents he has published on his site. (yes I took the time to register and read through everything before commenting).
His invention does not actually prove his theory. It does however re-enforce so called quantum tunnelling (I say so called as it is a bad description of this event, as quantum tunnelling is random process and experimentation shows that it is not.) and transfer of charge by non subluminal means.
I can setup many experiments that shows reactions predicted by TDM, but they still do not prove TDM. As it would take the ability to step outside of time to be able to prove/disprove it.
Universons, is an interesting construct of thought, but in practice it is restricted to finite range physics. Everything beyond the event horizon within it is still guess work, as in no usable values.
So it has no more practical basis than string theory, Hawking's Magic Numbers etc.
Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, I guess I was rather abrupt in what I said.
It's a fundamental problem in classical physics that at the first event horizon, it all falls flat on it's face, as physics require finite measurements to work with. Which obviously causes a problem when all values go technically infinite at this state.
Although it was important for him to base his theory in classical physics, he has held on too tightly to those constraints, in doing so his ideas run into exactly the same problem of vague meaningless data. As a by product of this zero point issue.
Where OU is concerned, the laws of energy conservation are correct in any single finite state. Which basically means that OU only applies when you are interacting with two or more states. It's nothing more than simple displacement of matter.
The problem that arises here is that he has not defined anything beyond the relative zero point (event horizon), so although his Universons are as viable as any other finite range theory, they remain in want of better words, magical units that appear from nowhere as he has no way of showing where they came from.
Although this seems to be entirely acceptable as of late within theoretical physics, on a practical basis it is yet another issue of half the story.
As mentioned before String theory, Quantum Mechanics and even part of General Relativity fall into the same trap of predicting actions and subsequent reactions, buy have no real way of plotting out what is occurring whilst the matter is in this zero state.
Many of us are familiar with the term "Quantum Wave packet". Yet whilst energy is in this state, all values produced are practically meaningless.
Hence why I created TDM.
To finally resolve this issue and do away with meaningless garbage like "We cannot be sure where anything is so it can travel anywhere". OK so that is true comment in singular finite terms, but again useless on practical basis, as tunnelling is not random.
btw anybody can get backing of anybody else if you produce enough spiel, thart is more to do with being a good sale person, than being a good scientist.
That set aside, it's good to see people are still prepared to challenge mainstream thought about reactions and he should be commended for trying to be a pioneer, even if he is replicating existing experiments and using different names for it.
What he calls a great discovery, classical physics calls anomalies that should be avoided. Yes I know that is crazy, but unless you shout loud enough that tend to be the scientific view point these days.
I agree with Universon's being a terrible marketing name. You really do have a bit of P.T.Barnham these days to get an theory taken seriously. The problem being Universon's does sound like alchemy rather than science, which is a hurdle he could have done without.
Where is the free energy coming from?
Now the difference here is I can explain the entire process,
Emission of high energy Pulse and back EMF results in the electrons being concentrated in the target material, when this reaches saturation point, the sum of the resistant acting upon them will cause there relative density to increase.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crownedanarchist.com%2Fequation3.bmp&hash=ff197593f65079325207f0244f4ed1a880809111)
Thus defining which scale range of the universe they now interact with.
The pseudo superluminal velocity involved.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crownedanarchist.com%2Fnewcequalscxtdm.bmp&hash=2a886ef437dfd4874ea696447739385bf8ecdf9c)
Yes I know I don't need the parenthesis's force of habit from C++ programming :)
and the energy involved. In ergs:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.crownedanarchist.com%2Feequalsmnewcsquared.bmp&hash=d267a2d3a55abdb25ac7b4c5738f636d5f92dd5f)
Basically as the result of this compression (increase in density, which is proportionate to the initial volume and velocity versus the resistance of the target)
As I mentioned before the particles or wave packets now interact as subliminal matter within a specified sclae range of the universe. (Beyond our relative zero).
Some of this is explained here http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2816.0.html
Because of this gain of matter. that scale range expands proportionately. Ejecting enough low density matter from it scale, which although still two high density to interact with out scale range, In the interim we have followed the normal curvature of space time and now can interact with these as for an example electromagnetic energy.
If compression factor is 2 or more states, then the resultant space time soliton, will have the accumulated effect of returning 2 or more times the input energy. Also within certain constraints you make displacement shift it returned relative density range of interaction. So to use it appears to be transmitted from a point A to a point B via non subluminal means (FTL).
Not a single part of classical physics needs to be altered to do this.
As I keep saying, in finite physics there are defined rules. Which are an uphill challenge to disprove. However in ultra high energy/beyond and event horizon, there is no right or wrong. Just the probable and less probable. In conjecture like TDM you give classical physics Tangable values to work with, so you have a more probable scenario. In conjecture like Universons, which I do not relish in saying, there are no tangible values once it hits zero point.
Although interestingly, much as with the rest of classical physics, TDM can cure this problem for Universon's, but it does then beg the question, if it needs TDM to cross zero point. What does universon's actually offer on it's own, other than the finite part of the description?
Also is this finite range part of the description so different from existing theories as to warrant it being called a theory in it's own right?
That is where we get into a grey area....
btw my apologies for pushing TDM in this reply. however it is currently the only viable conjecture for anything beyond zero point so I was left with no other alternative but to use it as the reply warranted definition of this area of study.
Hi 13thHouR,
I can see you being upset, talking about so many different things in one post.
First, let?s talk about theories. You mentioned some: strings, universons and implicit quantum mechanics. What is a theory? One can find its definition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory as well as many other web pages. I?ve noticed that you avoid using TDM in conjunction with ?theory?. Therefore, noticing it, I will not ask what TDM is, because it would be outside of the purpose of this thread. Anyway, the simple fact TDM is not a theory (as of yet) is suffice to make any comparison with Universons theory futile. Because the last one is clearly a well conceived scientific theory.
Then, I?d like to call off your statement that ?It (his invention, Universons theory) does however re-enforce so called quantum tunneling?. I don?t know what your background is but clearly you are way off the base here as quantum tunneling has absolutely nothing to do neither with the theory Mr. Poher presents nor with his experiments. One can read about quantum tunneling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling but the example given there is misleading: ?Quantum tunneling is the quantum-mechanical effect of transitioning through a classically-forbidden energy state. The classical analogy is for a car on a roller coaster to make it up and over a hill which it does not have enough kinetic energy to surmount.? The classical analogy does not work (it is purely imaginary) because if one computes the probability of a very small ball to ?quantum-tunnel? even through a very thin wall of 1-2mm, our universe is way too young for this to happen. Therefore, speaking about quantum-tunneling for a part of energy of about 15 Joules through a distance of many centimeters (even meters) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
?I can setup many experiments that shows reactions predicted by TDM??
Please do so. I?ll be very interested in following your posts and the evolution of TDM to theory and to experiments. But please do it in a dedicated thread. This is not the right place.
?So it has no more practical basis than string theory, Hawking's Magic Numbers etc.?
This is a guess and has no real basis. In fact, it is already dismissed by the current state:
1. There are on-going lab-scale experiments based on the theoretical predictions. In the absence of Universons theory, those experiments can not be interpreted.
2. There are also developments of the existing theories based on the initial postulates, those developments being in a good agreement with various already observed facts (i.e. anomalous acceleration).
Much of the remaining post deals with ?a fundamental problem in classical physics that at the first event horizon, it all falls flat on it's face, as physics require finite measurements to work with.?
There are several fundamental issues with physics but is it really the place to discuss them here?
I don?t recall Mr. Poher claims he solved any of those issues. Universon?s theory is developed based on some existing theories and consequently it will suffer from the same issues as the physics and mathematics it uses. But as long as it is capable of predicting various facts and of allowing the development of new applications, it has an existence and a meaningful one.
Then you move the full emphasis on TDM.
I could not follow what TDM is because only several posts exist on TDM and they are not presented in a logical and orderly fashion. No offense, but you are very difficult to follow.
Anyway, I don?t think that Universons theory competes with TDM and I consequently guessed that your desire was maybe focused on to promote your ideas. This is fine and understable as long as you do not throw with mud where you have no real reason to do so. I will follow your posts on TDM, but please do it in a proper place.
I have one question though about your statement that ?he is replicating existing experiments and using different names for it.? Hope you can provide a short and comprehensive answer. This sounds like a serious accusation and I will not buy it neither let it pass as something un-important you slipped among your paragraphs. Similar experiments exist (I will provide a link after you?ll post your answer) but they were totally empirically conducted and/or discovered.
Finally, I fully agree that Universons is a terrible marketing name.
Maybe they will be called ?nivs?, ?nives? or something.
History will tell.
Tx,
Tinu
Hi, everybody
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 07:51:35 PM
EnergieLibre, I owe this to you.
Can you tell us more about the subject?
No, I'm a newbie in all free energy stuff. I find the website of M.Poher because he was involved in space aeronautics and Ufo stuff.
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 07:51:35 PM
Are you somehow in contact with Mr. Poher?
No, even if i want to contact him i think i can't really understand all the process.
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 07:51:35 PM
Can you keep us updated on the evolution in France?
I will try within the limits of my knowledge.
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 07:51:35 PM
Please tell us more about you and about the subject, if possible.
About me: nothing very interesting for the subject. I just have some curiosity if you, good fellows of overunity.com, can explain for all non-physics and newbies if this UNIVERSONS-THING can have an explanation.
I'm not probably the first one who come on the overunity board with lot of dreams about free energy philosophy and then understand how complex are the subjects.
I benefit from it to thank the creators and administrators for this
site.
@Tinu and all
Thanks for the explanations you provide ;)
Oh, and sorry for my english.
EL
Hi all,
Note about the direct link to experimental results http://www.s178783976.onlinehome.fr/site_invention_demo/generalites_demo_gb/annonce_resultats_gb.php?wxcv=587:
?This free direct access will be closed on September 09, 2007.?This is just to be sure that everyone interested is able to check the videos.
One another important issue, I fully agree with:
Quote from: wattsup on August 26, 2007, 01:47:31 AM
I'd say something else. Anyone with some brains and the availability would contact the inventor and humbly (not arrogantly) ask to be taught the finer principles so you can become their representative in your country. But do it quick cause someone else will do it if you don't. This is what I call a ground floor opportunity of universal proportions.
Regarding the above, I?ve tried to contact Mr. Poher. Apparently the mail form on the page is not working and I couldn?t find an e-mail address.
Does anyone know how to contact Mr. Poher?
I personally would prefer e-mail but if not possible, then fax of phone would be just as good.
Many thanks,
Tinu
Quote from: argona369 on August 23, 2007, 06:37:08 PM
.
? Last Edit: September 11, 2007, 02:17:11 AM by argona369 ?
Why?
Hi everyone,
I?d just let you know that my second series of experiments about universons were unsuccessfully concluded. But, in the same time, they point toward the validity of the theory of Mr. Poher! How can it be?! I?ll explain myself.
What I?ve done: I?ve discharged hi-energy capacitors into a gas-tube. The discharged energy was quite large (>500J). For those not very familiar with capacitors, by short-circuiting more than 40-50J is pretty scary, even dangerous. (It can be easily lethal also, depending on the voltage, so take good care!) Anyway, 500J is also much larger than 15J used by Mr. Poher. I?ve stored those +500J in several series-connected capacitors, the equivalent of 2750microF, charged at >600V (usually 620-650V).
Now, like I said before, I could not measure any abnormal acceleration neither other kind of external effects on the discharge axis or elsewhere. But there is good news also. Except for a burst of light, the most part of that energy seemed to vanish. In order to understand the meaning of it, remember that 500J is enough to fully light a classic filament 5W bulb for 100seconds (or one of 100W for 5s). The bulb will emit light and it will also get very hot. But when I?ve discharged the whole 500J at once, none of the wires, neither the tube got hot, not even warm! The discharge time was on order of fractions of second (I couldn?t measure it exactly but I will do it in the near future) so the released power was large (>kW), to say at least.
So, the question is: where did the energy go?
I know some of it went of as light.
Another part went out as RF burst and maybe some X-rays.
Finally, some of it went out as Joule heat, but like I?ve said, this part was very small.
A totally insignificant portion went out as sound; the tube does a slight ?cling? sound during the discharge (this part was a nice surprise since I?ve expected the tube to violently explode in small pieces or at least to fail/ to crack?)
And the rest of the energy?!
My hypothesis is that quite a significant portion of the discharged energy went into producing a flux of universons (a gravitational wave, if you like). Unfortunately, due to the setup I have, that flux (if real) was pretty much distributed in 4pi radians, becoming too diluted to be detected by crude methods. Anyway, at this point I have a lot of questions and uncertainties. That?s why I hope someone from Mr. Poher team will come here and comment on it. (My attempts of contacting Mr. Poher were unsuccessfully).
For the near future I plan to check if X-rays are emitted and, if so, to estimate the flux (by using a photographic film) and to protect myself against them. ;)
I will also try to estimate the power of RF burst and the energy contained in it.
Finally, I?ll try to intensify the magnetic field (check the patent for schematics) and to imagine more refined methods for identifying some of the predicted effects of an anisotropic flux of universons.
I?d really like to see it replicated and undoubtedly confirmed.
Any thoughts on the above?
Any advice?
Anyone willing to repeat the experiment or to conduct others on this line?
Tx,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on September 15, 2007, 02:37:08 PM
What I?ve done: I?ve discharged hi-energy capacitors into a gas-tube.
...sounds dangerous but interesting, do you have any more information on the gas tube? Pictures, fill, pressure, original design use?
Well, yes. The tube is the easy part.
It?s a common commercial lightning tube rated 18W (Phillips TL-D/54-765). At least it contains heavy ions and noble gases (Hg, as per patent) but the pressure is not low enough and the electrodes are symmetrical and not in the form I wanted. But the electrodes can at least be heated, thus electron emission stimulated?
I?ve tried to find a company to manufacture a tube according to the specification in the patent but not lucky yet and that part has to wait.
Anyway, the tube I?ve used should be close enough. Some effects predicted by theory should be noticed imho.
(I?ve tried also a couple of Russian vacuum tubes and TV cathode tubes but the current is too small for them to be of any use). One point is clear: while current is more than enough in my last attempts, the length of the lightning tube requires a much larger voltage. Hence, more capacitors will follow?
Thanks for coming here and checking it,
Tinu
Greetings one an all. I've been lurking around this forum now for about 6 months, and I must say
I have been enjoying the depth and flow of ideas that abound in its pages. I dont actually put much
credence or faith in the validity of many of the ideas expressed here from time to time, but I think
the forum is invaluable in its contribution to the furthering of scientific understanding and the
free exchange of ideas. Keep it up everybody.
Every now and then I have been tempted to put in my "two cents worth", not because because I
necesarily have something positive to say, but because the claims of some people really need rebuking.
However, I do not bother, because other forum members usually do a good job of showing these claims
or ideas up for what they are; often they are just pure silliness, or plain old fashioned fraud.
When I visited Pohlers website regarding universons, I became quite impressed with the depth of his
theory, and his work with regard to experimental validation.
Then I read a thread regarding a theory called "TDM".
Having never heard of, nor read anything, anywhere, about "TDM" theory, I searched for and
found this site :- http://www.crownedanarchist.com/timedensitymass.htm
The TDM theory is presented in the form of a series of email correspondences between Roland Michel Tremblay and
William Taggart.
The following is an extract from the site which appears after hitting the (page down) button approximately 7 times.
"What TDM exploits is a theoretical physical interpretation of one of Zeno's paradox's, Ulysses and the Arrow
( Which I am sure you are familiar with)
Basically Zeno said that if Ulysses stood at a given point ( Which I will call point (a) ) and fired an arrow
to a target (Which I will call point (b) ).
The then the flight of the arrow would be the full distance away from the target (point (a) to point (b).
As the arrow flew through the air it would be 1/2 the distance from point (b) , then 1/4 the distance from
point (b) , 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64 and so on for infinity.
What Zeno said is : when does the arrow reach zero and hit the target (Point (b) )
In fact it never does!"
Any theory can seem plausible, and even reasonable, when considered only within the realm of "Theory" itself.
Taking a purely theorectical approach to a problem often leads one into a logic trap, which sometimes can only
be described as "silly". IMHO TDM is "silliness".
A theory can only be considered as practical or useful or indeed "on the right track" if it can be shown
experimentally and/or actually, that the theory is indeed reflective of, and provable within objective reality.
Einstein's theory of relativity and its implications for the relationship between a moving object's velocity and
it's own experience of time compared to the experience of time by a stationery observer, caused great consternation
to many of his peers, and at the time was considered "silly" to many, because they had no way of verifying his ideas.
Many years later, however, with the evolution of knowledge and techniques, Einstein's theory was proven by experiment
and objective actuality, to be right.
Now his theory concerning "relative time experience" has been applied in a practical manner to synchronise
an orbiting satelite's on-board clock with those on earth.
In the preceding quoted paragraphs however, if we were to substitute Ulysses with any other real person
(your neighbour perhaps), and the target with any other real person (your brother or son or father perhaps),
then one can observe the reality that the target would be well and truly "dead" if the archer is an accurate one.
History is full of people (targets) killed by arrows shot by archers (Uluysses) and it would suffice to say,
that telling their surviving spouses, family and other loved ones that they need not worry, because
theoretically the arrow never hit it's target, would be an insult to them of the highest order!
Theory is a product of the human mind, but an object (objective reality) exists, even if a human mind is not present to
acknowledge or analyse it.
The Ulysses story reminds me of another philosopical question/mind experiment; "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody
is around to hear it, does it make a sound?".
Lets presume that there are two people in the forest, but one is "deaf".
Only one person can hear the sound and the other doesn't.
But this is not proof that the sound is only an "illusion" and not an objective reality,
since the compression and expansion of air which constitutes sound waves
can be detected and measured by means other than the human ear, and the empirical results of those measurements
via alternative detection can be accessible to both the "deaf" and hearing person.
Now it may well turn out in the future, that TDM theory will be shown experimentally to be correct or valid to some degree,
but IMHO, it will remain as nothing more than a philosophical mind experiment and "silly" theory with no
practical benefits to offer whatsoever. ::)
Hi all,
I?ve promised above in my reply to 13thHour to post some links of intriguing experiments that can, at least in principle, be explained using the theory of Mr. Poher. I was waiting for 13thHour to post his links but since he has not responded as of yet, I guess it is my turn.
Here it is:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/morton1.html - ?Morton effect?.
After reading the base page, please ?if interested in going further- take your time to check:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/mort2.txt - the e-mail list
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=2251b4e6.0108121250.1476a3a7%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dmorton%2Bvdg%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dsci.physics.electromag ? the newsgroup discussions.
Especially in the group discussion there is an excellent post (among many others almost as good) that I will integrally cite bellow. It belongs to Mr. Jan Panteltje and it reads:
?I am still thinking about this.
If indeed the arc is essential and not the superconductor....
maybe he created a focus field when beam passed through the
round magnet behind the superconductor without him realizing it.
Something else came to mind:
WHAT if the electrons have sufficient energy to either 'disintegrate'
or perhaps make loose some exotic particle.
This particle would then travel in the same direction perhaps, and this
would explain the narrow (non diverging) beam.
Also do you realize how difficult it is at 150 m to find a spot of say
10 cm diameter, behind a brick wall, without visual contact?
Normally you could use a laser to align, but even one degree off in any
direction would cause a miss.
So, how did he do that?
Jus try with a laser to hit something 10 cm diameter 150 meter away!
Now do it with an IR laser and a photo detector only!
Anyways, if it is particles, then yes, I will not speculate about there speed.
My particle physics is non existent at best.
I know the electron was split (well I did dread), but ....
Here is a nice area for the amateur, do not listen to the establishment here!
But on the other hand why was this not observed / reported in linear electron
accelerators?
More questions then answers, good!
Do you really have a vd Graaf? Cool.
Regards
Jan?
Genial post! (Please try to understand it in the context of Universons? theory, now fully available but not developed in 2001)
Unfortunately, the experiments related to ?Morton effect? were discussed in 2001 and then it seems they were aborted.
Anyway, the subject is still of acute actuality, imho.
I will recap and summarize my best conclusions depending on your overall interest on the theory of Universons.
So far, I still have on my list of tuff questions the one above about effects in linear accelerators; if anyone is aware of some experimental results on that line, please let me know about them.
Interesting times indeed, don?t you think?
Many thanks for your attention,
Tinu
P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, hoptoad. And welcome aboard!
I stumbled on that theory while searching for some ufo update on http://www.ufologie.net/indexf.htm
What a crazy time i have these days, especially after some days spent on the disclosure project.
Very strange post from 13thHour. What is the point trying to put down a weird theory by another weird theory and its weird arguments ?
I'd say money talks, bullshit walk. Booth sides.
At least, here that can be solved in a lab. No need for a EBE date.
Make an experiment run and hard facts will pay.
Is WO2007093699 the only patent ?
In addition, does Poher claims he can generate freely energy ?
Did he produce excess energy beyond doubt ?
Never heard of that theory in france.
But, is the Diclosure Project aware of that research ? Because they should (provided it works partically and clearly they require)
Reedited on October 3rd:
I've parsed many of the docs, and the global feeling is not very good.
Especially, the experiments and the arguments that state that there is no electromagnetic effect into play do not convince me at all.
He states that because the maxwell equations are linear, if a force had to appear due to EM effects, then it should be linear with the voltage applied according to these same maxwell equation.
I don't agree with that argument. Who said that EM makes it all ? I mean, a FET (transistor) follows the laws of EM (and Quantum) , and, it doesn't behave linearly.
In addition, i find amazing that he uses a loud speaker in order to detect a gravitational effect. And to finish all that, he works with 1MW impulsions.
It is obvious that with such strong impulsions, you take the risk of non linear effects of all sorts, whatever you can argue that 'there should be no non linearity with the chosen materials'
And also the risk of basic induction effects.
I will be more convinced if he does his future experiments with DC current, and please don't use any EM sensitive device when trying to detect Gravity variations, that's dumb stupid.
I understand that he has no budget, but that's worse than nothing.
I doubt many here (including me) will understand the mathematics of this theory; I have read (or more accurately tried to understand) the PDF files on C Poher's site. One would need a Bach. degree in physics to atleast begin to understand the equations.
conceptually though, i do grasp what he is saying.
One thing i would ask of C Poher is to propose or devise a practical method of using or manipulating this "phenomenon" for propulsion. He says applying a high current on the custom-made object causes this directional movement; but where will this "high current" come from???
C Poher has also been involved with UFO research, so i would have to assume that he is thinking in terms of antigravity technology when he talks about propulsion.
I will be keeping tabs on C Poher's research. Looks promising.
devilzangel
..
Quote from: devilzangel on October 21, 2007, 04:08:42 PM
I doubt many here (including me) will understand the mathematics of this theory; I have read (or more accurately tried to understand) the PDF files on C Poher's site. One would need a Bach. degree in physics to atleast begin to understand the equations.
conceptually though, i do grasp what he is saying.
One thing i would ask of C Poher is to propose or devise a practical method of using or manipulating this "phenomenon" for propulsion. He says applying a high current on the custom-made object causes this directional movement; but where will this "high current" come from???
...
devilzangel
..
Actually, the initial arguments (relativity does not take part of them, except for corrections) are very basic, indeed of the level of Bach degree, no more. Which is either the mark of pure genius or ...
I spend hours trying to follow rigorously the basic principle, and then his explanation of gravity.
But he doesn't use an inertial referential, worse, he mixes in his descriptions more than one referential.
So by applying what I learned at school, my predictions of what really happens are often exactly the contrary of what he says !
He says is system is OverUnity : one impulsion of unversons could accelerate all the objects in line on a high distance. Whatever their number. So potentially ,large cinetic energy.
He then says that by just recovering the cinetic energy generated, and tranforming it into electricity (sort of dynamo for example) the loop could be close.
One would just need a starter for the first impulsion ...
I am gonna compute his crackpot index.
Sorry peeps, I have been so busy lately that I did not get a chance to reply to all comments on TDM.
I am a little wary about doing this as I do not want to dominate the universon's thread with a different topic.
However i was asked to reply.
What is a theory, well we already have had the Wiki Definition here, but one thing that has been over looked and it is the basic reason why I refer to high energy physics as Conjecture, We exist in a low energy subluminal state. Thus until such time that we actually travel via non subluminal means. Then this area of physics will never be a Theory.
Thus an entire area of Universon's is incorrectly referred to as a Theory. When in fact it is conjecture.
This does not make universon's wrong, but it does knock the credibility of those who would call it a Theory.
Why is TDM more probable?
Quite simply, because it does not require you to rewrite the laws of physics, and to disprove it would require you to through out all the known laws of physics as well as being able to already travel via non subluminal means.
Well in the latter case we already do, but relative velocity seems to be a steep learning curve for a lot of peeps. So i wont jump that far ahead yet.
If anybody has any serious questions about TDM. (not just silly remarks) then please feel free to ask them. (just try not to dominate this thread with the questions).
I do have question for the chap saying that Universon's is a theory.
Other than finite classical physics. What is the purpose of Universons since it has nothing to define any matter state beyond relative zero point with any tangible data?
I am sorry if that rains upon your parade, as it clear this is long thought out piece of conjecture, but even conjecture has to be viable. Universons does not (in high energy physics terms) offer anything more than Hawkings Magic Numbers.
As I said before, the question is, does Universons offer anything new in classical physics terms? I honestly believe this is where is is stronger and may well be more viable.
Where as TDM gives scalable increments of measurement which can expand or contract to infinite possible dimensions and still be fully reversible. Any given TDM state (scale universe) offers full finite level physics. Be it our current TDM state 0 or even TDM state 9,999,999. btw TDM state 9,999,999 is 9,999,998 times smaller than the smallest definable state in our finite universe. It has a relative scale velocity of 0 to C, but when compared to us its pseudo superluminal velocities are 9,999,998C to 9,999,999C.
Can Universons give such precise velocity values to states of the universe are is nearly 10 Million times smaller than our relative zero point/event horizon?
Well quite simply it cannot, because without TDM, nothing is definable with any workable values beyond our relative zero point. As that is the fundamental weakness of classical physics. Unless you address this issue then any conjecture meaningless names, numbers and fantasy.
Simple fact TDM returns relative and pseudo superluminal velocities for any possible scale range within a possible infinite space time continuum. Although if would take an infinity to plot them all.
It can show relative interactions, via classical physics terms, and the resulting cascades that occur through out space time from any interaction/reaction in those scale ranges (TDM states)
TDM is one of those annoyance of physics conjecture. by its very nature it defies the self supporting rule that would normally be the reason to condemn it. As to do so is to also say all our defined physics is wrong. To reiterate the basic principle of TDM.
TDM uses the known finite universe as defined by classical physics, as a base standard for a scale value that can be used to span an infinite space time continuum. A glorified tape measure of scale. One that gives tangible values beyond relative zero point. That can be compared, reversed and used in a productive manner to predict interactions anywhere in an infinite universe.
Thus to disprove it, is to disprove all that is defined by classical physics.
Now do you understand the conundrum?
As an example of its practical applications. I used TDM to show that the desired kick in the so called TPU's is in fact multiple Soliton waves, that quantum tunnel, thus do not lose their potential energy to the physical resistance of wire, a type of room temperature superconductivity if your prefer that term. However if repeated at the correct interval, this kick can be increased exponentially, To create the apparent output of energy which exceeds that of the input. In reality it is just matter being displaced from another scale range of space time that the unit is catching up with on its own travel along the curvature of our relative space time.
However since we believe we only exist in a single scale range (TDM state) it appears as a gain in energy. Much like a warship firing shells at you from the other side of the horizon, you cannot see or directly interact with the ship so it appears to come from no where.
You may notice I said "we believe we only exist in a single scale range". This is a correct statement, but again that is a very steep learning curve, I will come back to that as peeps learn more about TDM.
As I sure only few of you will understand how we can both be finite and exist infinite states at the same time. As our human brains are not normally wired to think both in the box and outside the box at the same time. Which is also why some people have problems with understanding TDM.
Everything we define is in the box. TDM is the box and infinite possible scale versions of that box.
Please someone could say what TDM stands for.
Time Density M ?
Time Division Multiplex ?
Perhaps it is a pun? TDM => "tedium"? ;) just kidding
@Tinu: in, I must admit, a very late reply to your story about the 500J discharge,
I would like to suggest that it may indeed have gone into a spacetime distortion.
You refer to it as a gravitational wave and along the Universon theory line of thought,
but I would just like to point out Townsend Brown's experiments with high voltage
discharges in relation with his electrogravity research. (fyi: besides his famous
flying capacitor experiments, he is said to have studied "strange phenomena"
that occurred in navy shipyards where very large high voltage discharges were
used to arc weld the hulls, and where phenomena were reported ranging from
tools changing location or position during such a spark discharge, up to tools
disappearing entirely, and even some claims of light intensity decreasing in
the same zone... )
Brown concluded this must be a beefed up version of the
spacetime-bending effect that his highly charged capacitors had, which
caused them to levitate despite gravity.
I suggest something like that happened in your instantaneous high energy
discharge too...
But I must admit I have not studied the Universon theory extensively yet,
so I'm not sure how well that links up with it. I will read the theory and
ponder it some more... :)
"Tedium", I call it the same thing ;D
Quote from: lcdvasrm on June 01, 2008, 02:13:43 PM
Please someone could say what TDM stands for.
Time Density M ?
Time Division Multiplex ?
Oops sorry about that, I thought I had posted the definition of the name on this thread.
TDM= Time density & Mass. Which refers to both the ability to address infinite and relative states.
Well, have a look on that paper: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/13522 (http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/13522) !!!
If someone is around and "skilled in the art", please comment.
Unfortunately, part of the paper goes beyond my skills.
Best regards,
Tinu
Looks very interesting. Need a lot of time to read it carefully.
There is a computation of ratio of masses of particles. I don't know if one can do that in quantum physics. If not, then, the precision is so good (1e-9) and so perfectly matches measurements that this is extremely good, with a short formula The formula must be right. What might be wrong is the interpretation. This is very complex stuff. I don't know for instance if this is to be compared with the higgs boson action. Needless to say, no chance I can argue further.
Not being able to compute absolute mass is not surprising. Mach said around 1880 that "there is no mass. there are only ratios of mass, these ratios of mass are ratios of acceleration"
My pet theory provides a mass charge relation for the electron, http://luth.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/ukmachar.htm
Merry Christmas everyone!
Time out for me until 2013 so I wish you Happy New Year!