Overunity.com Archives

Hi

Please check below ...

Power generation without fuel from Bangladesh...
http://www.peoples-view.org/day_by_day/2008/04/20/index.php

Senior Vice-President of CCC&I M A Latif and scientist Giasuddin Kachi (top) are seen displaying the system of fuel without power. Photo-SK.Morshed.

It is unbelievable in the scientific world that one can generate power without fuel or any connectivity with other electric devices. But it makes possible by an innovative young scientist of Bangladesh named Giasuddin Kachi after prolonged 17 years continuous research.
Bangladeshi scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers were stunned to witness the invention yesterday and commented that the invention of Giasuddin Kachi has brought a radical revolution in the world and ushered a new era in science.
They also said that the countrymen as well as the people of the world would largely be benefited in the present days of power shortage through his invention when it will go commercial generation of power.
Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCC&I) organized a display of the invention titled 'Display of Self-fueled Generation System' at its conference room yesterday afternoon in presence of the scientists and engineers of government and private institutions and the newsmen.
Key patrons of the invention Acting President of the CCC&I M A Latif, journalist Hasan Nasir and Giasuddin Kachi briefed about different aspect of the system and its potentiality while displaying its function.
Vice-President of the CCC&I Mahbub Alam and its Director Aminul Islam, representatives of different government and private institutions including Power Development Board (PDB), Bangladesh Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (BCSIR), Kaltimex Energy Bangladesh Private Limited, GEC Bangladesh Limited addressed the display function among others.
MA Latif in his welcome address informed that the new invention power system has already enabled to produce 10 thousand watt power and said that the system would be able to produce more power after its commercial production .
He also informed that they would negotiate with world reputed multinational electric device manufacturing companies to produce the system commercially shortly after setting its patent.
Director of the CCC&I Amirul Haque said that Bangladesh will be the pioneer of new era of science if the system successfully runs its function without fuel and connectivity with other electrical devices.
Chief Engineer of the PDB Mohammed Abul Kashem said that the new invention of power production could be changed the traditional thoughts of the scientists.
Manager (Service) of Kaltimex Energy Bangladesh Private Limited, an institution of DEUTZ POWER SYSTEM, Soumen Chakraborty said that Giasuddin Kachi has invented a wonderful power production system that can be play a significant role to meet the power shortage of the country.
Later, Giasuddin Kaci displayed his new invention through running fan, drill machine and light.

Thanks for the news,  I hope it will come out as something really useful on the long run.

I say this because from time to time such sensational news appear and it is a topic for a few days then they vanish and we never hear any more about them.
See this thread here on such news too:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4466.0;topicseen
and even the inventor has been around ( member DougieResearch here).  Let's hope he or the Bangladesi inventor will not disappear...

rgds,  Gyula

Here we go with yet another perpetual motion machine based on "new", but totally undisclosed, "science".  I am sorry, but a refrigerator sized box demonstrating the same function for a few minutes as an ordinary toaster sized UPS is hardly convincing.  We can now start the timer for several events:

*How many milliseconds before MPI's Mark Goldes latches onto that news piece from Bangladesh and tries to use it to legitimize his tired claims of OU.
*The eternity that will pass before this device is subjected to any objective testing.
*Publication of conspiracy theories that the device is being supressed.

i have to agree its a shame that the stuff we see that looks good, seems to turn to dust a short time later, im begining to wonder whats up with that, it seems to happen %100 of the time,.

A poverty-stricken Bangladeshi inventor born at Jhinaidah has virtually brought surprising and cheerful news with his unique innovation of power generator for the nation especially for the crisis-ridden power sector of the country.
The man named Giasuddin Kachi, surprised the nation by inventing a unique generator which is able to generate power without any fuel. The brilliant inventor claimed that the generator would be able to generate power without any fuel which will cover vast area.
Only some equipments are enough to generate power, he said. The generator invented by Kachi yesterday went to Railway Polo-Ground, the venue of Chittagong International Trade Fair (CITF) where he showed that the generator can initially generate 1000 kilowatts power. He surprised the attendants by operating a drill machine (800 watts) and a bulb (500 watts)
The 37-year-old inventor could not continue his academic activities after secondary school certificate (SSC) examination for poverty. But poverty could not stop him at all.
The man of Kaliganj in Jhinaidah Gias Uddin had chosen the creative profession - writing signboard and banner - and subsequently came to the port city just three years back in search of better opportunity.
The idea of power generator without fuel had generated inside my mind when I was a SSC examinee and I took care of the idea over the last eighteen years and I continued my works to fulfill my dream, the inventor told the reporters.
"Finally I became successful just few months back," he added.
The successful man who overcame his limitation and poverty, claimed that power supply could be ensured not only in the domestic purposes but also in the industrial units by utilizing his technology.
"If the government provides financial assistance, power generation in large scale is possible and power supply to the national grid can also be ensured," the visionary man said.
As per his invented technology, power generation will be continued if the motor is run once.
"In the first step, the generator will be started either manually or with the help of power and later, the generator will generate power (within ten seconds," the inventors said.
The inventor, in an experimental basis, could generate 3000, 5000 and highest 10,000 kilowatts power. He said that he would be able to generate 10 to 50 megawatts power.
"Only using a transformer, some specialized circuits and devices were used in the generator which cost only a small amount," Kachi said adding that only with the investment of Taka one lakh he can make generator which will be able to generate power upto 10,000 kilowatts.
He expressed his gratefulness to journalist Hasan Nasir who introduced Kachi with Vice President of Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry MA Latif.

Quote from: steve_chow on April 20, 2008, 03:59:21 AM
Hi


Senior Vice-President of CCC&I M A Latif and scientist Giasuddin Kachi (top) are seen displaying the system of fuel without power. Photo-SK.Morshed.

LOL   Haven't we seen some of those before? I just love those Freudian slips.

Hans von Lieven

i really hope this guy gets his fair shake but doubt it will happen.  it would be nice to get an idea of what it was he did to generate this kind of power.  1000kwatts in a small application?  that's awesome.  he mentions a transformer and some circuits.  and therein is the secret.  oh well.  if anybody comes up with a patent that would be awesome.

suckapunks

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on May 16, 2008, 03:38:16 AM
Here we go with yet another perpetual motion machine based on "new", but totally undisclosed, "science".  I am sorry, but a refrigerator sized box demonstrating the same function for a few minutes as an ordinary toaster sized UPS is hardly convincing.  We can now start the timer for several events:

*How many milliseconds before MPI's Mark Goldes latches onto that news piece from Bangladesh and tries to use it to legitimize his tired claims of OU.
*The eternity that will pass before this device is subjected to any objective testing.
*Publication of conspiracy theories that the device is being suppressed.

here he comes...
http://www.energyblogs.com/magneticpower

and obviously:   ".........the work appears to parallel similar commercial development under way by our own firm"

Turz

I have a PDF that has MPI  patent Numbers  if anyone wants to look at them

Anybody know anything else about this generator of power/electricity?
The only thing I can put together with him and "Magnetic Power Inc" is that they may be using the new polymer type of conductor/wire that is called "Ultraconductors". Theoretically it is supposed to be 100,000 times more conductive than copper or gold with "unique" thermal and magnetic properties.

Anyway, just a thought.

fyi, here's a powerpoint of the comapnyies Ultraconductor...
http://www.ultraconductors.com/Ultraconductors.ppt

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on May 16, 2008, 03:38:16 AM


*How many milliseconds before MPI's Mark Goldes latches onto that news piece from Bangladesh and tries to use it to legitimize his tired claims of OU.

He already has on the Steorn forum.

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60099&page=4#Item_1

Quote from Stefan:

"Only using a transformer, some specialized circuits and devices were used in the generator which cost only a small amount," Kachi said adding that only with the investment of Taka one lakh he can make generator which will be able to generate power upto 10,000 kilowatts.
He expressed his gratefulness to journalist Hasan Nasir who introduced Kachi with Vice President of Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry

I don't trust this story.

All he is asking for is one lakh of Taka. In Indian parlance one lakh is 100.000. At current exchange rates that amounts to 1500 Dollars US. Even in Bangladesh this is peanuts. If this guy was real he would have had his money ten times over with just one public demonstration. Even though there is a lot of poverty in this country, there is also a lot of wealth and there are many enterprising people with money to risk on a new idea. I know the country quite well, having been in Chittagong and Dakka on a number of occasions. In my view this story is just like all the others in a similar vein, pure crap.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 21, 2008, 05:25:34 PM
Quote from Stefan:

"Only using a transformer, some specialized circuits and devices were used in the generator which cost only a small amount," Kachi said adding that only with the investment of Taka one lakh he can make generator which will be able to generate power upto 10,000 kilowatts.
He expressed his gratefulness to journalist Hasan Nasir who introduced Kachi with Vice President of Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry

I don't trust this story.

All he is asking for is one lakh of Taka. In Indian parlance one lakh is 100.000. At current exchange rates that amounts to 1500 Dollars US. Even in Bangladesh this is peanuts. If this guy was real he would have had his money ten times over with just one public demonstration. Even though there is a lot of poverty in this country, there is also a lot of wealth and there are many enterprising people with money to risk on a new idea. I know the country quite well, having been in Chittagong and Dakka on a number of occasions. In my view this story is just like all the others in a similar vein, pure crap.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans

Seemed like too much curry-flavored? Don't you think so?

cheers
chrisC

You know, how does a company like "Magnetic Power Inc" stay in business when I can't even find a product they sell?
http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/

I do not answer newbie questions  ;D theres no WMD's or the other stuff . feed your head ......... the weapon is your politicians . fact read and learn . you are lost....................

Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 21, 2008, 05:25:34 PM
Quote from Stefan:

"Only using a transformer, some specialized circuits and devices were used in the generator which cost only a small amount," Kachi said adding that only with the investment of Taka one lakh he can make generator which will be able to generate power upto 10,000 kilowatts.
He expressed his gratefulness to journalist Hasan Nasir who introduced Kachi with Vice President of Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry

I don't trust this story.

All he is asking for is one lakh of Taka. In Indian parlance one lakh is 100.000. {snip}
In my view this story is just like all the others in a similar vein, pure crap.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,
do not interpret what is not there.  Nowhere is the inventor asking for any money.
He never said he was looking for an investment in order to do something or to continue research or do build a production facility, or anything else.

He could just have well said that for an investment of xx you can buy a 10kW Italian snowmobile.

I had the impression that the mentioned sum was a guess-timation of what it would cost to build a 10kW device.  Do not literally interpret the word investment written by a Bangladeshi reporter in a foreign language.  If you read the various stories in this newspaper it is immediately apparent that translations from Bengali to English read sometimes funny.

In Europe, it would cost me more than 1500 USD to buy a mass-produced 10kW fossil-fueled generator made in China by slave labor.  So the quoted price for a 10kW FE machine is nothing to raise any eyebrows or make any conclusions concerning fraudulent claims.

What you should have thought is that there is too little information to make any conclusions whatsoever, so it is not necessary to post any opinion based on no facts.

Until further facts become available, there is no rational reason for anyone to participate in imaginary speculation in this thread.  Save the bandwidth and wait.  Or take a plane to Bangladesh and talk to the Chamber of Commerce and the inventor.  Better to have only 1 page on this thread until further info becomes available, rather than 40 pages of nonsense speculating about this and that.

Earl

A better question might be-----
How could one generate usable amounts of energy  --""Only using a transformer, some specialized circuits and devices were used in the generator which cost only a small amount," ?

Quote from: Earl on May 22, 2008, 03:54:51 AM
Hans,
do not interpret what is not there.  Nowhere is the inventor asking for any money.
He never said he was looking for an investment in order to do something or to continue research or do build a production facility, or anything else.

He could just have well said that for an investment of xx you can buy a 10kW Italian snowmobile.

I had the impression that the mentioned sum was a guess-timation of what it would cost to build a 10kW device.  Do not literally interpret the word investment written by a Bangladeshi reporter in a foreign language.  If you read the various stories in this newspaper it is immediately apparent that translations from Bengali to English read sometimes funny.

In Europe, it would cost me more than 1500 USD to buy a mass-produced 10kW fossil-fueled generator made in China by slave labor.  So the quoted price for a 10kW FE machine is nothing to raise any eyebrows or make any conclusions concerning fraudulent claims.

What you should have thought is that there is too little information to make any conclusions whatsoever, so it is not necessary to post any opinion based on no facts.

Until further facts become available, there is no rational reason for anyone to participate in imaginary speculation in this thread.  Save the bandwidth and wait.  Or take a plane to Bangladesh and talk to the Chamber of Commerce and the inventor.  Better to have only 1 page on this thread until further info becomes available, rather than 40 pages of nonsense speculating about this and that.

Earl

I am not interpreting what is not there. 

This guy is not talking about a 10 KW generator for $1500 he is talking about a 10.000 KW generator for this kind of money.

At this price he would have people rushing him from all over the country. Every little and not so little factory, every workshop would want one. I still don't trust this story. Each electric train could be powered with one of those with power to spare. It is crap.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,

the inventor did not say anything; the reporter scribbled notes and typed from his notes later.  The reporter probably doesn't understand kW from Megawatt.  I don't think it would be any different  for a reporter from France, USA, or AU.

If what a reporter wrote makes no sense whatsoever, but makes perfect sense with 10kW then it is obvious what the inventor meant, but the reporter messed up with one extra letter.

We have trouble descending to the level of comprehension of an average person concerning power levels, but believe me the average person is not capable of recognizing an error of 3 orders of magnitude; whether Watt, kW. or MW:  it is all Greek to them.

Earl

There is a pretty new interview with Mark Goldes on their homepage now:

http://www.magneticpowerinc.com

Surely hopefuly soon their toys will be sold...

Too bad the Bangladesh inventor is not open sourcing it...

All the big companies want only to profit from it and they do is handling this
secretively in the background...

Regards, Stefan,

$1500 USD in Bangladesh is the equivalent of $15,000 USD in a more modern country...the wages are lower and it would take about 5 years to save that money, provided you eat sleep and drink bottled water...nothing frivelous, not even air conditioning.

minimum wage there is about $70 a month if your lucky.

Stefan Mark Goldes has recently shifted the focus away from those magic magnetic free energy generators he's never delivered.  He now talks about the end of 2009 for the toys he has promised year after year after year.  Despite saying that he's had OU devices for years he has never presented the slightest shred of evidence that his claims are true.  He has never submitted any devices to any lab despite promises he would in "a few weeks".  That's been going on for several years running.

Mark's now emphasizing a very Carl ( convicted felon ) Tilley like claim of a working Maxwell demon.  Mark claims that these demons already power golf carts, cars, and boats while cooling down the environment.  Those claims are as extraordinary as they are trivial to validate.  Successful test would provide him all the offers of capital he could ever want.  How long are you willing to give him before he shows some sort of credible evidence to back up his fantastical claims before you doubt his incredible stories?

I can assure you that within that refrigerator sized box in Bangladesh is an energy store loaded up prior to the demonstration. Most likely it is just a concealed battery ala Stephen Marks.  A year from now there won't be any of these machines independently verified, just like Perendev, REMAT, Lutec, Bedini, Bearden, Newman, Lee, et-al.  TANSTAAFL

Quote from: hartiberlin on June 01, 2008, 01:33:42 PM
There is a pretty new interview with Mark Goldes on their homepage now:

http://www.magneticpowerinc.com

Surely hopefuly soon their toys will be sold...

Too bad the Bangladesh inventor is not open sourcing it...

All the big companies want only to profit from it and they do is handling this
secretively in the background...

Regards, Stefan,

Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 04, 2008, 12:46:18 AM
$1500 USD in Bangladesh is the equivalent of $15,000 USD in a more modern country...the wages are lower and it would take about 5 years to save that money, provided you eat sleep and drink bottled water...nothing frivelous, not even air conditioning.

minimum wage there is about $70 a month if your lucky.

Have you ever had a look how many $ 50,000 plus cars are running around Dakka or Chittagong? There is a lot of money on the loose in Bangladesh for things like this. I still say it's a scam. Poverty of the masses is not a sign of the economic prowess of a country or its elite. All it means is that the ones in power like cheap slaves.

Hans von Lieven

...so he would have to ask the ones with money for money

which is exactly what he said, and is what you are saying.

im not debatng wheter it works or not, i really dont know, but that wasnt my point.

Well if one really wanted to confirm the obvious that it is yet another BS free energy claim, they could inquire of Mr. Kachi when he disconnected his home or stopped being a net consumer from the electric utility.  Anyone care to bet that he is still hooked up and consuming power from the utility, rather than selling surplus free energy back to them?

Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 05, 2008, 12:31:12 AM
...so he would have to ask the ones with money for money

which is exactly what he said, and is what you are saying.

im not debatng wheter it works or not, i really dont know, but that wasnt my point.

Maybe if someone speaks the language from this country and has contacts
over there, maybe you can contact the inventor and tell him to come
over here and report about his unit ?

We have to hear from first hand reports, not just interpretations from people
who have not seen it yet personally...

Please let us know.
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

One possible reason to the "dissapearing acts" of these third-world inventors and their inventions in the past is the IMF and World Bank: In their loans to "developing countries", they are said to have riders in them that prohibit the borrowing country from "developing or implementing any technology which would compete with the use of petrolium as a fuel".

No, i got no proof, just the words of Daniel Dingle and a couple of other souces in the international financial community, as read about on a political blog. The loan terms are always secret, so the average people who live in those countries can't see the terms.

About as much proof as some here have that the inventions are bogus ;)

jibbguy you seem to have matters rather backwards.  In order for one to assert a claim that disagrees with established experience, it is up to the claimant to provide evidence in support of their claim.  Kachi does not.  The article does not.  As to your world bank conspiracy theory, you do not.

CoE is readily observable and has been well tested countless times.  If anyone wishes to dispute CoE, it is their burden to supply the verifiable evidence.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 06, 2008, 07:37:20 PM
One possible reason to the "dissapearing acts" of these third-world inventors and their inventions in the past is the IMF and World Bank: In their loans to "developing countries", they are said to have riders in them that prohibit the borrowing country from "developing or implementing any technology which would compete with the use of petrolium as a fuel".

No, i got no proof, just the words of Daniel Dingle and a couple of other souces in the international financial community, as read about on a political blog. The loan terms are always secret, so the average people who live in those countries can't see the terms.

About as much proof as some here have that the inventions are bogus ;)

MPI seems to dream a lot:

See MPI-"updates document" from April 2008:

"Existing technology will make possible the wireless transfer of up to 150 kW of power from
parked vehicles, powered by POWERGENIE generators, to the power grid (V2G)."
http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/pdf/POWERGENIE_Technical-progress.pdf

While trying to come to market with Powergenie, they do other stuff:

"Self Powered Systems? include a revolutionary, patent pending, technology, which converts ambient heat into electricity. This non-magnetic breakthrough has the potential to go to production in the near future.  The system has proven capability to recharge batteries from heat extracted from the air; an alternative to the need to plug-in. This technology can also be configured to produce stand-alone power. It can give electric cars unlimited range, as well as turn them into power plants. MPI is also developing breakthrough magnetic energy technologies including POWERGENIE........"
http://www.magneticpowerinc.com/summary.html

Is that serious and can be there be expected something real?

And having a self-runner does NOT automatically mean, that it can be scaled. In each document there is that claim, it can be scaled to MegaWatts. Thats never sure. Perendev maybe has a self-runner for years now, but cannot scale this magnet-motor to serious amount of usable energy. And maybe weakening magnet are the second problem.

The stuff with Ultraconductors from MPI (Superconductors at room temperature) sounds great. Would be a good material to design overunity-devices for sure. But realy ready in OU-devices??? Always claims over claims and unsure conclusions.

This bangladesh thing sounds great. Hopefully the circuit comes out, if not a fake. Who knows?

@pennies_everwhere

QuoteCoE is readily observable and has been well tested countless times.  If anyone wishes to dispute CoE, it is their burden to supply the verifiable evidence.

What is the Truth when the Truth is unacceptable ;D
The science we know holds true through repetition, that is doing the same things over and over. When people do things that are out of the ordinary very often they achieve extraordinary results which science rarely accepts nor understands.

Its not that the demand for proof is backwards... It is just that some refuse to understand that it goes both ways....

You can't call something a fraud unless you have sure knowledge that it is one. Which of course, 999 out of 1,000 times, they do not. Of course that doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway, lol.

So i just go on the working model that if someone does insist on claiming fraud with no actual knowledge, then they are acting fraudulently themselves.... Or they are perhaps shills; which is equally worthy of dismissal for not being a serious challenge in my book.

Look, these things may or not work. Suppression may or may not be a fact. You can certainly suggest caution, request scientific method be used properly in examining these issues. But using derision and scorn with obvious prejudice... Without any hard data to back you does not raise you above those who are making the claims... It only shows a general unwillingness to hold an honest discussion about it. And that is NOT scientific.     

@allcanadian, if it is verifiable it's science.  If it's someone's unverifiable claim it's woo-woo.  If it's rhetoric intended to discredit the painstaking and highly reliable scientific method, it's useless bafflegab.

Quote from: allcanadian on June 18, 2008, 11:04:02 AM
@pennies_everwhere
What is the Truth when the Truth is unacceptable ;D
The science we know holds true through repetition, that is doing the same things over and over. When people do things that are out of the ordinary very often they achieve extraordinary results which science rarely accepts nor understands.

@jibbguy, the only "it" that matters is verifiable experience.  Once we have a wealth of verifiable experience, we have reasonable reliable beliefs.  That is as certain as knowledge can or needs to be.  When we encounter new verifiable experience that runs contrary to beliefs then rational people evolve the beliefs to account for the new, verifiable experience.

We have today countless verifiable experience that CoE holds true.  Kachi, like so many before him, offers zero verifiable evidence that he has a CoE violating gadget.  To any reasonable limit, that establishes his claim as false apriori.

Dismiss logic, reason, and accumulated experience all you like to your own disservice.  If some nut tells you that he has a magic remote control that suspends gravity, will you "keep an open mind" and follow him off the top of a building, or pay attention to the "shills" who tell you that absent reproduceable  evidence to the contrary, that nut's claims are false?

You've once again put the cart squarely before the horse.  It is the burden of the claimant to show that they have followed the scientific method and produce verifiable evidence of their claims.  That means they must supply a reproduceable experiment to support the claim first.  Kachi has not.

People make extraordinary claims without the slightest shred of supporting evidence all the time.  Such nonsense fully deserves the derision it rightly draws.  Acting on established knowledge in the face of no contradictory evidence is not predjudice.  It is simply: sober, rational behavior.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 18, 2008, 05:09:23 PM
Its not that the demand for proof is backwards... It is just that some refuse to understand that it goes both ways....

You can't call something a fraud unless you have sure knowledge that it is one. Which of course, 999 out of 1,000 times, they do not. Of course that doesn't stop some people from doing it anyway, lol.

So i just go on the working model that if someone does insist on claiming fraud with no actual knowledge, then they are acting fraudulently themselves.... Or they are perhaps shills; which is equally worthy of dismissal for not being a serious challenge in my book.

Look, these things may or not work. Suppression may or may not be a fact. You can certainly suggest caution, request scientific method be used properly in examining these issues. But using derision and scorn with obvious prejudice... Without any hard data to back you does not raise you above those who are making the claims... It only shows a general unwillingness to hold an honest discussion about it. And that is NOT scientific.     

Air conditioners and refrigerators have COP greater than one. So do air compressors: The heat generated by the compression, whether it gets wasted or not, is still energy that is added to the potential energy of the compressed air. So excuse many of us if we don't worship the little tin god of "CoE"; since this god is not all-knowing or correct in every circumstance.

When the scientific mainstream refuses to admit something, despite facts to the contrary... Then there is little to discuss; and we can just go on without the dubious blessing of the science-priests. This Bangladesh device is just one of over a dozen that may use the same principals discovered by many others before.... Adams, Johnson, Teal, Gray, Christie, Newman, Bedini, Beardon, Lindemann, Moray.... Even Tesla (...and others). Devices that are not being studied AT ALL by mainstream science (at least openly)... Suppressed to the point that places like this exist so SOMEONE will bother to study them... Whether actively suppressed by those who would lose profit and power if the devices were embraced, or more "benignly" by those who's mindset refuses to accept them.. Either way the result is the same. Yet even here; where science is viewed by many as an unfinished book instead of a "done deal".... Some would have you not study them.

This school of thought would apparently suggest all these inventors must be "frauds" ; simply because they have not been embraced by the mainstream.... Because what proofs they did offer were ignored or treated like pots of gold at the end of a rainbow; rejected because the shape of the pot was wrong.

I say this because to discount this latest one we are discussing in this thread, in such an out-of-hand manner, is to say that all the other ones must be false also. Because if you admit just one of them works as advertised.... Then it becomes very much more difficult to discount the rest without proof (and the denials will then certainly sound less credible).   

No one is asking for unquestioning faith when considering these devices. We leave that to those who will reject anything that was not written about in their college text books ;)

jibbguy apparently you do not understand COP and CoE.  There is no conflict between CoE and heat pumps that exhibit COPs far greater than 1.0.  What CoE and the laws of thermodynamics you deride tell us is:

1. We cannot increase the heat of a resevoir without drawing that additional energy from another source.
2. We cannot decrease the entropy of a resevoir, ie we cannot exchange heat in a resevoir of a given temperature so as to create a new lower temperature and a new higher temperature resevoir without drawing external energy from another source.

Both of those statements from the "little tin god of "CoE"" as you so disdainfully deride it, are 100% compatible with operation of heat pumps at COPs many times greater than one.  If you still do not understand this, then I suggest that you improve your science education. 

To put the COP issue into perspective, consider that we can routinely purchase heat pumps with COPs of five or higher. If a COP > 1 represented a gain in energy, then it would be possible to construct a PMM from a heat pump:  use the gradient generated by the pump to operate a Carnot cycle engine that provides the power for the heat pump.  The fact of the matter is that this does not work.  That "little tin god of "CoE"" is to all current understanding in complete control of our world.  That you cite a bunch of crackpots, crooks, and nuts who have all claimed, but failed to demonstrate the PMM they claim merely underscores that reality.

Belief in that for which there is no reproduceable evidence is nothing more than superstition.  Kachi has a box that is far larger than an ordinary UPS capable of doing everything that he demonstrated.  Ergo he has presented NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to support his outlandish claims.

When someone, anyone presents reproduceable evidence that CoE does not hold it will be a watershed day in science.  The myth that science rejects new information is routinely disproved bunk promoted by charlatans and the ignorant.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 19, 2008, 10:29:29 AM
Air conditioners and refrigerators have COP greater than one. So do air compressors: The heat generated by the compression, whether it gets wasted or not, is still energy that is added to the potential energy of the compressed air. So excuse many of us if we don't worship the little tin god of "CoE"; since this god is not all-knowing or correct in every circumstance.

When the scientific mainstream refuses to admit something, despite facts to the contrary... Then there is little to discuss; and we can just go on without the dubious blessing of the science-priests. This Bangladesh device is just one of over a dozen that may use the same principals discovered by many others before.... Adams, Johnson, Teal, Gray, Christie, Newman, Bedini, Beardon, Lindemann, Moray.... Even Tesla (...and others). Devices that are not being studied AT ALL by mainstream science (at least openly)... Suppressed to the point that places like this exist so SOMEONE will bother to study them... Whether actively suppressed by those who would lose profit and power if the devices were embraced, or more "benignly" by those who's mindset refuses to accept them.. Either way the result is the same. Yet even here; where science is viewed by many as an unfinished book instead of a "done deal".... Some would have you not study them.

This school of thought would apparently suggest all these inventors must be "frauds" ; simply because they have not been embraced by the mainstream.... Because what proofs they did offer were ignored or treated like pots of gold at the end of a rainbow; rejected because the shape of the pot was wrong.

I say this because to discount this latest one we are discussing in this thread, in such an out-of-hand manner, is to say that all the other ones must be false also. Because if you admit just one of them works as advertised.... Then it becomes very much more difficult to discount the rest without proof (and the denials will then certainly sound less credible).   

No one is asking for unquestioning faith when considering these devices. We leave that to those who will reject anything that was not written about in their college text books ;)

The energy from heat created by the compression of air... There is no solar cause of this heat, it comes simply from compression.  When added to the energy of the compressed air itself, it is COP> 1 . We don't have to utilize the heat for it to still exist as fact. And there only needs to be one instance for the law to be clearly broken... When things are so rigid, they are also brittle  ;)

Its not that people feel the Law will be utterly broken by free energy devices. It is that the UNOBSERVED energy in the system will balance the equation. But since the dogma of mainstream science refuses to study these unobservable energy sources (openly at least), then they are claimed to "not exist". And the Law is used as some sort of "ultimate weapon" to answer every anomalous problem that comes around with "unquestionable" denial.  So showing that the Law is not immutable, will eventually cause others to question the other things in science they held to be sacrosanct, too.

My understanding of science is obviously different than yours... I thank God for this. A questioning mind will see things that have been deliberately and carefully shrouded from the unquestioning. I'm not afraid to look behind the curtain; i took the red pill. I know that this world is chock-full of things i don't know about, that a very small percentage know about... And that the reality is very different than what is projected on our screens. It would often be comforting to be so sure of things with such unshakable certainty.... But i guess thats not for me any more. 

To call all those inventors frauds or crackpots shows this: Either the accuser is unaware of their work and simply giving a knee jerk conditioned reaction, or they are pursuing an agenda and being disingenuous. Because they certainly do not have personal knowledge of this. In any case, it is NOT the "scientific method" they claim to be "protecting"... And unworthy of serious debate.     

jibbguy wrote: "There is no solar cause of this heat, it comes simply from compression"

As i know, an air-condition, which can also be used as heater for a room, and known to be more efficient than 100% takes its extra energy from the air outside around the house to heat the room inside.

because air outside is far away to be at absolute 0 like in Space (vacuum). in opposite to solar-cells the air outside is a huge sun-collector (the atmosphere) which deliveres its energy (temperature) day and night.

This should be true, because of the fact, efficiency decreases significantly (falls under 100%) when temperature outside get too coold (under 5-10?C).

A self-runner should be possible. But i think, there is still no efficient process for conversion heat to pump work, which could be paid and maintained from the air-condition-supplier. But MPI wants to do that (see above) and other try to use environmental-temperatures (stearling?, etc.).

has anyone new pictures or video or information about this bangladesh-transformer?

jibbguy, your statements imply a gross ignorance of basic physics.  You celebrate your ignorance and superstitious beliefs.  You are free to remain as ignorant and superstitious as you like.  You can adhere to nutty conspiracy theories all you like.  You can actively choose to ignore established facts all you like.  Deliberate ignorance, superstition, and belief in non-existant conpiracies will not bring you free energy.  They will not reveal "hidden energy".  They will not make the phony claims pitched by free energy charlatans true.  Should you choose to invest in their phony claims, your superstitions and poor judgement will however lighten your wallet.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 20, 2008, 10:08:14 AM
The energy from heat created by the compression of air... There is no solar cause of this heat, it comes simply from compression.  When added to the energy of the compressed air itself, it is COP> 1 . We don't have to utilize the heat for it to still exist as fact. And there only needs to be one instance for the law to be clearly broken... When things are so rigid, they are also brittle  ;)

Its not that people feel the Law will be utterly broken by free energy devices. It is that the UNOBSERVED energy in the system will balance the equation. But since the dogma of mainstream science refuses to study these unobservable energy sources (openly at least), then they are claimed to "not exist". And the Law is used as some sort of "ultimate weapon" to answer every anomalous problem that comes around with "unquestionable" denial.  So showing that the Law is not immutable, will eventually cause others to question the other things in science they held to be sacrosanct, too.

My understanding of science is obviously different than yours... I thank God for this. A questioning mind will see things that have been deliberately and carefully shrouded from the unquestioning. I'm not afraid to look behind the curtain; i took the red pill. I know that this world is chock-full of things i don't know about, that a very small percentage know about... And that the reality is very different than what is projected on our screens. It would often be comforting to be so sure of things with such unshakable certainty.... But i guess thats not for me any more. 

To call all those inventors frauds or crackpots shows this: Either the accuser is unaware of their work and simply giving a knee jerk conditioned reaction, or they are pursuing an agenda and being disingenuous. Because they certainly do not have personal knowledge of this. In any case, it is NOT the "scientific method" they claim to be "protecting"... And unworthy of serious debate.     

i am always amused, and curious, when a debate opponent faced with a difficult reply reacts with personal attack instead of an actual counter argument based on points of fact and reason (...the proverbial crickets are still chirping while we wait to hear why air compressors and the thermal differential caused by them do not break the First Law)... Do these people really think ad hominem attacks answer anything? But then again; that supposes that they are interested in honest debate in the first place; and not just trying to force an agenda by any means possible... As if it were their "job" to do so. Perhaps if that is the case, then it's time to find another line of work.

Conspiracies: They exist as fact everywhere, every year thousands of persons are convicted of exactly that in our courts. The Continental Congress of 1776 was a conspiracy. Man is a conspiratorial creature. And trying to use the term as a simple argument in itself against those who can't be intimidated; just like using ad honinem attack... Is like peeing up a rope: It doesn't become any easier, nor less uncomfortable, no matter how many times it is tried ;)

jibbguy, there is no debate.  You postulated a fantasy in the form of a claim of conflict that simply does not exist.  For you to believe your postulate, you have to ignore the ideal gas law:  PV=nRT.  Pressure, volume and temperature are all related.
Do you get it yet?  The ideal gas law conforms to the First Law of Thermodynamics.  Compressing gas into a vessel conforms to the First Law.

Rather than claim others are part of some dark conspiracy, you would do much better to learn about the subjects you claim you wish to debate.  Making a spectacle of your own ignorance by claiming others are part of a conspiracy is just sad.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 21, 2008, 09:07:24 PM
i am always amused, and curious, when a debate opponent faced with a difficult reply reacts with personal attack instead of an actual counter argument based on points of fact and reason (...the proverbial crickets are still chirping while we wait to hear why air compressors and the thermal differential caused by them do not break the First Law)... Do these people really think ad hominem attacks answer anything? But then again; that supposes that they are interested in honest debate in the first place; and not just trying to force an agenda by any means possible... As if it were their "job" to do so. Perhaps if that is the case, then it's time to find another line of work.

Conspiracies: They exist as fact everywhere, every year thousands of persons are convicted of exactly that in our courts. The Continental Congress of 1776 was a conspiracy. Man is a conspiratorial creature. And trying to use the term as a simple argument in itself against those who can't be intimidated; just like using ad honinem attack... Is like peeing up a rope: It doesn't become any easier, nor less uncomfortable, no matter how many times it is tried ;)

What would the Ideal Gas Law have to do with the CoE law? There is no direct correlation between the one, which is useful for  calculating the temp; and the CoE . The former is an equation. It does not state where the temperature actually "comes from" and does not specifically state whether the added heat energy was or was not intrinsically created by the compression process itself; it just implies that it "does exist" without explaining or defining. We can now say that this added heat comes from molecules bumping into one another; but in 1834 or 1867, molecules were not yet actually defined and so the Ideal Gas Law was no more than an equation coming only from empirical observation... Not unlike today's problems of empirically observing OU in a device without being able to specifically define or prove its form of motive energy ;)

So you are trying to use one equation to support another law which is not particularly linked by anything but by very tenuous inference. And maybe this is what Maxwell and his peers did as well: I'm sure these people knew all about Ideal Gas Law, Clapeyron and Avogadro, Gay-Lussac and all that (and i suspect this little quirk with compressing gas was swept under the rug, as "inconvenient"). But when the First Law was written it does not specifically explain the temp differential from compression; It is later just implied that it somehow "fits" and everyone is apparently just expected to believe that it does.

But it does not fit. This heat from compression is energy that appears to be "created". When you consider heat pumps, it could be argued that the energy is ultimately solar. But this is not the case with compression; it is "a special case". And once one sees that, then one must accept the possibility of other "special cases" ;)

Its not that the First Law is "bad"; it is the best Man could do at the time (without atomic theory, etc). And its not that we don't understand the process of compression very well, we do now. But knowing the process, and having equations for it, does not automatically explain it in terms of the First Law.   

jibbguy, so many words, so badly misinformed.  It is just sad.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 22, 2008, 04:53:29 AM
What would the Ideal Gas Law have to do with the CoE law? There is no direct correlation between the one, which is useful for  calculating the temp; and the CoE . The former is an equation. It does not state where the temperature actually "comes from" and does not specifically state whether the added heat energy was or was not intrinsically created by the compression process itself; it just implies that it "does exist" without explaining or defining. We can now say that this added heat comes from molecules bumping into one another; but in 1834 or 1867, molecules were not yet actually defined and so the Ideal Gas Law was no more than an equation coming only from empirical observation... Not unlike today's problems of empirically observing OU in a device without being able to specifically define or prove its form of motive energy ;)

So you are trying to use one equation to support another law which is not particularly linked by anything but by very tenuous inference. And maybe this is what Maxwell and his peers did as well: I'm sure these people knew all about Ideal Gas Law, Clapeyron and Avogadro, Gay-Lussac and all that (and i suspect this little quirk with compressing gas was swept under the rug, as "inconvenient"). But when the First Law was written it does not specifically explain the temp differential from compression; It is later just implied that it somehow "fits" and everyone is apparently just expected to believe that it does.

But it does not fit. This heat from compression is energy that appears to be "created". When you consider heat pumps, it could be argued that the energy is ultimately solar. But this is not the case with compression; it is "a special case". And once one sees that, then one must accept the possibility of other "special cases" ;)

Its not that the First Law is "bad"; it is the best Man could do at the time (without atomic theory, etc). And its not that we don't understand the process of compression very well, we do now. But knowing the process, and having equations for it, does not automatically explain it in terms of the First Law.   

@pennies_everywhere
LOL, I remember a time when I had your confidence and everything was right in my world and this time was truely blissful. But your logic has one serious flaw, to state something is "impossible" -- to say something cannot be done is to deny both individualism and evolution. I am not you nor am I any scientist of the last 200 years as such I am not bound by your opinions nor your beliefs. I would agree it is very unlikely the COE will be violated anytime soon if ever but remember our "science" is only a couple hundred years old and look how far we have come. To believe tommorrow or in one thousand years your opinions must still hold true is to declare yourself a "god" among men which you are not nor am I. All I can tell you is I started succeeding in things you say cannot be done the moment I started respecting others opinions --- not believing them whole heartedly but giving them due consideration as another perspective.

Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2008, 02:00:41 PM
@pennies_everywhere
LOL, I remember a time when I had your confidence and everything was right in my world and this time was truely blissful. But your logic has one serious flaw, to state something is "impossible" -- to say something cannot be done is to deny both individualism and evolution. I am not you nor am I any scientist of the last 200 years as such I am not bound by your opinions nor your beliefs. I would agree it is very unlikely the COE will be violated anytime soon if ever but remember our "science" is only a couple hundred years old and look how far we have come. To believe tommorrow or in one thousand years your opinions must still hold true is to declare yourself a "god" among men which you are not nor am I. All I can tell you is I started succeeding in things you say cannot be done the moment I started respecting others opinions --- not believing them whole heartedly but giving them due consideration as another perspective.

Some things are impossible.  To say that nothing is impossible is not living in the real world.  When it comes to human objectives, sure many things are now possible that were once thought impossible.  But there are also many things that were once thought impossible and are still impossible and will always be impossible.

In fact, one of the great achievements of modern civilization is widespread communication.  This is what allows us to advance.  Cave men did not really have this, so not much knowledge was passed on from one generation to the next.  But modern humans build on the knowledge of our predecessors.

For example, we all know that 2 plus 2 is 4.  We do not have to try to prove this every time we do any type of math.  And if someone sat all day trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is not 4, well, that person is just wasting his time.  It's like unrolling a roll of 40 quarters ($10) and seeing if you can make the total amount larger through creative arrangement.  It does not matter if your stack the quarters in 4 rows of 10 or 5 rows of 8 or whatever other permutation you can think of.  You can roll the quarters and flip them and mush them together in a pile.  But you will never end up with more than $10.  It is impossible, and I do not hesitate to be brave enough to say it is impossible.

@allcanadian the issue of debate is whether it is reasonable to declare Kachi's claims false or not without a detailed direct investigation as jibbguy claims is necessary.  Kachi provides no evidence of any scientific discovery.  There is therefore no scientific discovery to debate.

Kachi presents no evidence to show that his device produces free energy.  He has a very large box that can store a battery many many times larger than needed to conduct his demonstrations.  Kachi's demonstration is easily matched by a $30. UPS.  The burden is Kachi's to support his claims.  He hasn't.  They can therefore be safely disregarded as false.  End of story.

I find it amusing that you misquote me and mischaracterize my postings as part of a lecture of the virtues of respect.  Doctor, heal thyself.

Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2008, 02:00:41 PM
@pennies_everywhere
LOL, I remember a time when I had your confidence and everything was right in my world and this time was truely blissful. But your logic has one serious flaw, to state something is "impossible" -- to say something cannot be done is to deny both individualism and evolution. I am not you nor am I any scientist of the last 200 years as such I am not bound by your opinions nor your beliefs. I would agree it is very unlikely the COE will be violated anytime soon if ever but remember our "science" is only a couple hundred years old and look how far we have come. To believe tommorrow or in one thousand years your opinions must still hold true is to declare yourself a "god" among men which you are not nor am I. All I can tell you is I started succeeding in things you say cannot be done the moment I started respecting others opinions --- not believing them whole heartedly but giving them due consideration as another perspective.

...What if we melted down the quarters, and sold the metal ?.... ;)

@utilitarian

QuoteFor example, we all know that 2 plus 2 is 4.  We do not have to try to prove this every time we do any type of math.  And if someone sat all day trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is not 4, well, that person is just wasting his time.

But in this case we are speaking of energy not numbers nor pocket change, if you always built the same devices in the same way you can expect the same results. However if one were to build devices with due regard to the fact that all all energy systems are open systems and that energy is truely conservative ie.. it cannot be created nor destroyed only change in form, then 2+2 can equal 10 as I could use one of the 2's four times. Simple math is not a natural process, it is not energy, you cannot describe our universe with simple numbers and equations.

@ pennies_everywhere

Quote@allcanadian the issue of debate is whether it is reasonable to declare Kachi's claims false or not without a detailed direct investigation as jibbguy claims is necessary.  Kachi provides no evidence of any scientific discovery.  There is therefore no scientific discovery to debate.
Kachi presents no evidence to show that his device produces free energy.  He has a very large box that can store a battery many many times larger than needed to conduct his demonstrations.  Kachi's demonstration is easily matched by a $30. UPS.  The burden is Kachi's to support his claims.  He hasn't.  They can therefore be safely disregarded as false.  End of story.

You seem to imply that you or others "knowing" --having facts-- as to whether Kachi's device is real or not can effect the "reality" of whether it is real or not. ie.....

Quote--Kachi provides no evidence of any scientific discovery.  There is therefore no scientific discovery to debate.

Says who ? ------ you?------- can you prove there is no scientific discovery to debate?

QuoteThe burden is Kachi's to support his claims.  He hasn't.  They can therefore be safely disregarded as false.  End of story

LOL  ;D He doesn't have to support anything, he made a claim , you can believe it or not------- but your believing cannot change the facts.

@ Pennies

If energy an not be created or destroyed, then how did this energy come to be in the first place?

If Steven Mark's device was powered by a battery why did the Atomic Energy Comission come talk to him?

@allcanadian, I don't imply.  I state flat-out:  When someone wishes to challenge well evidenced beliefs, it is the claimant's burden to supply credible, and verifiable evidence.  Kachi's demonstration does none of that.

Arguing that any arbitrary claim is worthy of study simply because someone makes it, is complete foolishness.  You might as well waste time debating the existance of Mary Yugo's very shy invisible flying pink unicorn, world government psychotronic mind control beams, etc, etc. 

Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2008, 04:48:00 PM
@ pennies_everywhere
You seem to imply that you or others "knowing" --having facts-- as to whether Kachi's device is real or not can effect the "reality" of whether it is real or not. ie.....Says who ? ------ you?------- can you prove there is no scientific discovery to debate?LOL  ;D He doesn't have to support anything, he made a claim , you can believe it or not------- but your believing cannot change the facts.

@Grumpy, reasonable people believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed because there is no evidence that it can.  Provide some evidence that energy can be created or destroyed and there will be something to talk about.

I highly doubt the AEC was ever interested in Steven Mark's simple inverter.  It's a nice project for 14 year old's.  Where is there a credible reference to the visit by the AEC you claim?

Quote from: Grumpy on June 23, 2008, 04:52:37 PM
@ Pennies

If energy an not be created or destroyed, then how did this energy come to be in the first place?

If Steven Mark's device was powered by a battery why did the Atomic Energy Comission come talk to him?

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 23, 2008, 07:57:41 PM
@Grumpy, reasonable people believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed because there is no evidence that it can.  Provide some evidence that energy can be created or destroyed and there will be something to talk about.

I highly doubt the AEC was ever interested in Steven Mark's simple inverter.  It's a nice project for 14 year old's.  Where is there a credible reference to the visit by the AEC you claim?

If energy can not be created or destroyed then how is it that we are here at all?  Where did it all come from?  Big Bang?  How is it that there was anything to cause a big bang?

SM himself claimed that the AEC stopped by for a chat.  This is no different than any other claim that can not be proven without evididence.

@Grumpy, lacking answers for questions that are today a matter of existential philosophy does not in the slightest change the collective experience.  The collective experience of mankind is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Until there is evidence otherwise one can take CoE to the bank all day long.

WRT Steven Marks, his self-serving claims do not credible evidence make.  If you like to accept claims on faith without the slightest bit of supporting evidence, then perhaps you like to purchase a ride over the Grand Canyon on Mary Yugo's invisible pink unicorn.  I'll be happy to take your deposit.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 23, 2008, 08:12:02 PM
If energy can not be created or destroyed then how is it that we are here at all?  Where did it all come from?  Big Bang?  How is it that there was anything to cause a big bang?

SM himself claimed that the AEC stopped by for a chat.  This is no different than any other claim that can not be proven without evididence.

@pennies_everywhere
LOL, Sorry I must be a little off today (back from holidays)as it took me a while to understand your predicament. You really have no idea how to do this do you? I mean build a circuit like Katchi's.You make some good points in your posts but are still stuck on COE, that was never in question. So I'll try to spell this out for you, ----there is no overunity--never was ;) There is no violation of COE--people who copy others work and make up BS for the general public are responsible for this. I would suggest reading the some of T.H Morays papers and Teslas papers on Currents of high frequency and potential. Honestly this is not as hard as you think it is once you understand what it is your dealing with.

@Allcanadian, oh my what a terrible predicament living by logic and reason are!  The burden is soooo great.

I am quite familiar with Tesla.  His work at CO Springs and Wardencliff was about efficient coupling.  Tesla was fascinated with resonant systems.  At frequencies which align with system zeroes the impedance drops to a low level.  That level can be orders of magnitude lower than at other frequencies.  That increases the coupling of energy.  It doesn't create any.  It doesn't tap the aether.  It doesn't tap ZPE.  It just couples very conventional EM fields. 

But of course you disagree and know so much better, seeing as you power your home, your car, and all manner of other devices with all the free energy you get from high voltage resonators, don't you?  Oh, that's right, you don't.

Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2008, 11:07:32 PM
@pennies_everywhere
LOL, Sorry I must be a little off today (back from holidays)as it took me a while to understand your predicament. You really have no idea how to do this do you? I mean build a circuit like Katchi's.You make some good points in your posts but are still stuck on COE, that was never in question. So I'll try to spell this out for you, ----there is no overunity--never was ;) There is no violation of COE--people who copy others work and make up BS for the general public are responsible for this. I would suggest reading the some of T.H Morays papers and Teslas papers on Currents of high frequency and potential. Honestly this is not as hard as you think it is once you understand what it is your dealing with.

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 23, 2008, 08:56:25 PM
@Grumpy, lacking answers for questions that are today a matter of existential philosophy does not in the slightest change the collective experience.  The collective experience of mankind is that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Until there is evidence otherwise one can take CoE to the bank all day long.

WRT Steven Marks, his self-serving claims do not credible evidence make.  If you like to accept claims on faith without the slightest bit of supporting evidence, then perhaps you like to purchase a ride over the Grand Canyon on Mary Yugo's invisible pink unicorn.  I'll be happy to take your deposit.

P_E - the insolent little fukwad.  Always the same empty argument.  CoE is for closed systems and is based on an incomplete understanding on physics, yet you carry it like the Holy Grail. 

No one will ever show you the free energy that we all seak.  Rather than that we will watch you suck the oil-tit to the last drop.  So next time you're bending over at the pump to get your fill - just wonder how things could have been had you not been just another oil company bung hole idiot.

See, all of this free energy stuff that you scoff at has been figured out and replicated for decades and there is no need to prove anything to an insignificant copper-top like you.  The free world is more than happy to let you scrurry along aimlessly paying into the coffers of the oil cartel.  Hell - your ignorance keeps them off our backs!  HA HA ROFLMFAO!!!!

If you every look under th hood of an electric auto - wonder for a second if the batteries are just for show and what that black box really does.  Next time you see an electric meter spinning - suspect that the user actually has a dummy load on the circuit and the real power comes from his convertion unit - the one no one will tell you about - no one will prove - no one will allow to be varified - because it can't exist - LOL!.  When you pass a windmill - wonder if it's fake and produces no power at all, and that littel device that you laughed about provides all of the user's energy needs.

See Pennies, the only one getting conned is you - sucker!

Quote from: allcanadian on June 23, 2008, 11:07:32 PM
Honestly this is not as hard as you think it is once you understand what it is your dealing with.

Please share this great wisdom with us mere mortals.

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 23, 2008, 07:52:20 PM
@allcanadian, I don't imply.  I state flat-out:  When someone wishes to challenge well evidenced beliefs, it is the claimant's burden to supply credible, and verifiable evidence.  Kachi's demonstration does none of that.

Arguing that any arbitrary claim is worthy of study simply because someone makes it, is complete foolishness.

nobody here makes claims they never prove hahahahaa  :P

@pennies_everywhere

QuoteThat level can be orders of magnitude lower than at other frequencies.  That increases the coupling of energy.  It doesn't create any.  It doesn't tap the aether.  It doesn't tap ZPE.  It just couples very conventional EM fields.

Correct ;) that is what I told you----energy is conserved
But if you had built some of Teslas patents as I have you would understand these are not conventional EM fields. Can coventional EM fields travel the surface of a single conductor to power a conventional load with near zero losses? Can conventional EM fields power a conventional load in a circuit as if that load did not exist? Tesla liked to use a large self inductance of sufficient capacity to counteract inductive reactance at resonance as well as high potential currents to reduce the capacity required to do this and it was always assumed this was to increase efficiency. What few people have considered however is what might happen if the load offered "no" resistance to currents of proper frequency and potential other than ohmic resistance. In this case what we have considered "work" (watt-seconds)becomes an illusion as the load would appear as nothing more than a straight section of conductor to the circuit.So Yes energy is conserved, there is no need for creating energy, OU, aether, zpe or fairy dust this is basic circuit theory.

@Pennies: So you're a Tesla expert, too (you must be quite an amazing fellow)... Then please explain to us what sort of "efficient coupling" is done by use of extensive buried underground antenna arrays; many of us would be very interested to hear the answer to that one.

@allcanadian: Well since you seem convinced you know how to make an OU device,
after all, you're 'bragging' about being able to use electrical energy and then
re-use it by converting it from this "non-conventional EM" form into usable
energy again, in a mysterious Tesla-esque manner,
can you please enlighten a seriously curious fellow forum member? :)

I would like to know how to perform that trick so I can finally get
an OU electrical generator to work... :)

Grumpy, my position is simple and rational:  If anyone wants to claim a "free energy" source, a new energy source, violation of CoE or any other claim that runs in contrast to current understanding, the burden is on them to provide the credible, verifiable evidence for their claim(s).  Your espoused fervent belief in things for which you have no evidence is faith, not science. 

Since you believe that free energy is readily available, where can one see it?
Since you believe that free energy is readily available, what was your energy bill last month?
Since you believe that there are folks who pay electricity bills "just for show" ( the utility does read that meter for billing old chum ), wouldn't that make them the real suckers?

Rant on, curse on.  Since you like the idea that speaking up rationally against blind faith keeps your secrets for you, I am happy to oblige.  If pretending you are 10 years old makes you happy, more power to you. 

Quote from: Grumpy on June 24, 2008, 12:06:47 AM
P_E - the insolent little fukwad.  Always the same empty argument.  CoE is for closed systems and is based on an incomplete understanding on physics, yet you carry it like the Holy Grail. 

No one will ever show you the free energy that we all seak.  Rather than that we will watch you suck the oil-tit to the last drop.  So next time you're bending over at the pump to get your fill - just wonder how things could have been had you not been just another oil company bung hole idiot.

See, all of this free energy stuff that you scoff at has been figured out and replicated for decades and there is no need to prove anything to an insignificant copper-top like you.  The free world is more than happy to let you scrurry along aimlessly paying into the coffers of the oil cartel.  Hell - your ignorance keeps them off our backs!  HA HA ROFLMFAO!!!!

If you every look under th hood of an electric auto - wonder for a second if the batteries are just for show and what that black box really does.  Next time you see an electric meter spinning - suspect that the user actually has a dummy load on the circuit and the real power comes from his convertion unit - the one no one will tell you about - no one will prove - no one will allow to be varified - because it can't exist - LOL!.  When you pass a windmill - wonder if it's fake and produces no power at all, and that littel device that you laughed about provides all of the user's energy needs.

See Pennies, the only one getting conned is you - sucker!

@Allcanadian, those fields don't "follow a single conductor".  You have mislead yourself with faulty observations.  Most people have the incorrect idea that waveguides for EM fields have to be made of metallic conductors.  This is not true.  You aren't playing with scalar waves.  You have just done a poor job of observing ordinary EM field propagation under your experimental conditions.

Let me give you a clue here:  What resonance does is to counteract the reactive impedance so that all that is left is the real losses.  A perfect resonant tank does not reduce the real loss of the transmission system.  It can't.  All conductors, more properly waveguides, suffer real losses through the forward path and by energy conveyed into the dielectric.  These losses are frequency dependent.  At low frequencies they can be made quite small to the point where with a dry air, or preferably vacuum dielectric the dielectric losses are negligible and the forward losses are limited to the bulk resistance of the conductors.  Absent superconductors, loss is still present in the forward path.  With the presence of any dielectric other than a vacuum, shunt loss occurs in the dielectric. 

Quote from: allcanadian on June 24, 2008, 12:32:27 AM
@pennies_everywhere
Correct ;) that is what I told you----energy is conserved
But if you had built some of Teslas patents as I have you would understand these are not conventional EM fields. Can coventional EM fields travel the surface of a single conductor to power a conventional load with near zero losses? Can conventional EM fields power a conventional load in a circuit as if that load did not exist? Tesla liked to use a large self inductance of sufficient capacity to counteract inductive reactance at resonance as well as high potential currents to reduce the capacity required to do this and it was always assumed this was to increase efficiency. What few people have considered however is what might happen if the load offered "no" resistance to currents of proper frequency and potential other than ohmic resistance. In this case what we have considered "work" (watt-seconds)becomes an illusion as the load would appear as nothing more than a straight section of conductor to the circuit.So Yes energy is conserved, there is no need for creating energy, OU, aether, zpe or fairy dust this is basic circuit theory.

jibbguy, large underground antennae such as the USN uses in Wisconsin are completely explained by well established EM field and antenna theory.  If you are really interested, then read up on the subject.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 24, 2008, 01:53:08 AM
@Pennies: So you're a Tesla expert, too (you must be quite an amazing fellow)... Then please explain to us what sort of "efficient coupling" is done by use of extensive buried underground antenna arrays; many of us would be very interested to hear the answer to that one.

Quote from: utilitarian on June 23, 2008, 02:17:26 PM
For example, we all know that 2 plus 2 is 4.  We do not have to try to prove this every time we do any type of math.  And if someone sat all day trying to prove that 2 plus 2 is not 4, well, that person is just wasting his time.  It's like unrolling a roll of 40 quarters ($10) and seeing if you can make the total amount larger through creative arrangement.  It does not matter if your stack the quarters in 4 rows of 10 or 5 rows of 8 or whatever other permutation you can think of.  You can roll the quarters and flip them and mush them together in a pile.  But you will never end up with more than $10.  It is impossible, and I do not hesitate to be brave enough to say it is impossible.

2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, ... How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality." (Albert Einstein)

@Pennies:

Keeping an electric meter for show is a wonderful ruse, wouldn't you say?  As clever as the other ones I mentioned.  Even better with windmills as you could sell all of that to the electric untility since you don't need it.

My electric bill was $48 last month, but auto's are where the real consumption is   ;)

So, go along your merry way, believing that the world is flat and that big oil is the only way.  When you are paying $10 a gallon, just remember that it didn't have to be that way, but it is the way you wanted it.

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 24, 2008, 12:09:41 PM
Grumpy, my position is simple and rational:  If anyone wants to claim a "free energy" source, a new energy source, violation of CoE or any other claim that runs in contrast to current understanding, the burden is on them to provide the credible, verifiable evidence for their claim(s).  Your espoused fervent belief in things for which you have no evidence is faith, not science. 

Since you believe that free energy is readily available, where can one see it?
Since you believe that free energy is readily available, what was your energy bill last month?
Since you believe that there are folks who pay electricity bills "just for show" ( the utility does read that meter for billing old chum ), wouldn't that make them the real suckers?

Rant on, curse on.  Since you like the idea that speaking up rationally against blind faith keeps your secrets for you, I am happy to oblige.  If pretending you are 10 years old makes you happy, more power to you. 

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 24, 2008, 01:09:18 PM
2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

Van Goethe was a novelist and poet, not a mathematician, and frankly, I do not know what he is going on about there, and I suspect you don't either.  By your logic, there is no mathematical answer for anything, and if that's the way you want to live, fine, good luck at the checkout counter.

Quote from: utilitarian on June 24, 2008, 01:28:36 PM
Van Goethe was a novelist and poet, not a mathematician, and frankly, I do not know what he is going on about there, and I suspect you don't either.  By your logic, there is no mathematical answer for anything, and if that's the way you want to live, fine, good luck at the checkout counter.

yup he was, and his math is better than yours... your 'bistro math'
"By your logic..."  thats quite an assumption isn't it. i tell you your math is nothing more than verbal knowledge and you make some wild asinine leap to how there is no mathematical answer for anything. LOL

and what of albert? was he 'JUST'  a novelist and a poet? meh, i'll leave that asinine leap for you.

more poetry...
"Mathematical knowledge is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. "3" means "2+1", and "4" means "3+1". Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that "4" means the same as "2+2". Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious." (Bertrand Russell)

Wilbylnebriated, just like every unique number, the symbol 4 is a representation of a unique quantity.  There are an infinite number of relations that all result in the unique quantity we call 4.  You seem to be confusing mathematical identity for symbolic expression.

Mathematics is a set of precise and rigidly consistent logical rules for representing the relationships between quantities.  Those rules are tremendously useful in constructing models that help us to understand the world around us.  The fallibility of models lies in the simplifying and often incorrect assumptions used when constructing those models.  They are not a result of math.

Quote from: WilbyInebriated on June 24, 2008, 01:09:18 PM
2 plus 2 IS NOT 4.
2 plus 2 IS 2 plus 2
YOU call it 4 for short...

"Mathematics has the completely false reputation of yielding infallible conclusions. Its infallibility is nothing but identity. Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all. And thus it goes on and on in its conclusions, except that in the higher formulas the identity fades out of sight." (Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe)

"One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its propositions are absolutely certain and indisputable, ... How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality." (Albert Einstein)

hrrmmm, so bertrand russell seems to be confusing the same...

"Mathematical knowledge is, in fact, merely verbal knowledge. "3" means "2+1", and "4" means "3+1". Hence it follows (though the proof is long) that "4" means the same as "2+2". Thus mathematical knowledge ceases to be mysterious." (Bertrand Russell)

silly me, i should have known that the likes of you would trump the likes of einstein, russell and feynman...

@Pennies: Thx for the advice... Underground antennae is a fascinating and strange subject.... And one that is not well understood theoretically. Using Earth Ground to transmit signals and/or useful power wirelessly is not truly about resonance or coupling; or even EM waves as it is usually defined or understood. Coupling was just one of hundreds of phenomena Tesla studied. And there is no proof that what Tesla was trying to achieve at Wardenclyff was actually EM signal transmission. In fact if it really had been that; then J.P. Morgan would not have pulled the plug on him and lost millions for nothing.... As well as the chance to corner the very promising  wireless industry.

Whatever it was that made Morgan act in such a wasteful way, it must have been significant. After all he held the paper on the site, he could have fired Tesla and got another inventor / engineer to finish it; if this was just a radio tower..... Whatever was discovered there must have been too "dangerous" to risk it.   

I don't pretend to know with any certainty what it really was Tesla was trying to achieve there; but i suspect no one else here does either. Those that do know may not be likely to post about it ;)

@pENNIES

You never explained where all of the energy came from in the first place.  Of course it couldn't have been created, so we can rule that out.  Hmm - maybe it was all "converted".  Yeah that must be it, but converted from what?

@Grumpy, you are stuck in a pointless loop.  It is not necessary to answer an existential question in order to record what we observe.  To date we observe CoE.  When you or anyone else obtains credible verifiable evidence otherwise, call a press conference and get ready for that trip to Sweden.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 24, 2008, 03:31:21 PM
@pENNIES

You never explained where all of the energy came from in the first place.  Of course it couldn't have been created, so we can rule that out.  Hmm - maybe it was all "converted".  Yeah that must be it, but converted from what?

@jibbguy, the USN doesn't seem to share your doubts or feelings of mysticism.  They designed ULF antennae that work very well for global submarine communication, no goat sacrifices required.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 24, 2008, 02:36:53 PM
@Pennies: Thx for the advice... Underground antennae is a fascinating and strange subject.... And one that is not well understood theoretically. Using Earth Ground to transmit signals and/or useful power wirelessly is not truly about resonance or coupling; or even EM waves as it is usually defined or understood. Coupling was just one of hundreds of phenomena Tesla studied. And there is no proof that what Tesla was trying to achieve at Wardenclyff was actually EM signal transmission. In fact if it really had been that; then J.P. Morgan would not have pulled the plug on him and lost millions for nothing.... As well as the chance to corner the very promising  wireless industry.

Whatever it was that made Morgan act in such a wasteful way, it must have been significant. After all he held the paper on the site, he could have fired Tesla and got another inventor / engineer to finish it; if this was just a radio tower..... Whatever was discovered there must have been too "dangerous" to risk it.   

I don't pretend to know with any certainty what it really was Tesla was trying to achieve there; but i suspect no one else here does either. Those that do know may not be likely to post about it ;)

Sidestepping and straw-men seem to be your strong suits (...besides using denigration, scorn, and personal attack for those same reasons) . Lets see some actual answers. Don't worry we wont scorn you for using too many words: Actual answers require them.

Questions you have inartistically avoided:

1. Where is the actual link between Ideal Gas Law and CoE in regards to the heat energy created by compression of air (or give up on that non-hunting dog and come up with another one if you think it will help explain the created energy in terms of the First Law).

2. What do underground antennae have to do with coupling.

The U.S. Navy is involved with a lot of things that are not fully understood by mainstream science. They, like us all, are controlled by the laws of gravity; for starters ;) 

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 24, 2008, 03:41:27 PM
@Grumpy, you are stuck in a pointless loop.  It is not necessary to answer an existential question in order to record what we observe.  To date we observe CoE.  When you or anyone else obtains credible verifiable evidence otherwise, call a press conference and get ready for that trip to Sweden.

Your clever attempt to dodge this question is a futile attempt to hide the emptiness of your endless banter.  To admit energy "conversion" or "creation" would nullify your reasons for existence and result in your successful suicide.

Come on now.  Let's at least discuss the question before casting it aside.

If energy can not be created, then all the energy in the universe must have been "converted" from some other form of energy - correct?

Noether's Theorem

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. It is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, which states every symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". In other words, if the theory is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy -- unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Since any time-varying theory can be embedded within a time-invariant meta-theory energy conservation can always be recovered by a suitable re-definition of what energy is. Thus conservation of energy is valid in all modern physical theories, such as special and general relativity and quantum theory (including QED).

To Hell with CoE.  Change the rate of entropy (what we call time) and you're not breaking the rules.

jibbguy there is no energy imbalance compressing a gas.  Energy goes into the compressing mechanism, some converts to heat, some converts to potential energy in increased pressure of the compressed volume.  It all balances out.

If you don't realize that an antenna is a coupler, that is just another topic you are lost on.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 24, 2008, 04:16:43 PM
Sidestepping and straw-men seem to be your strong suits (...besides using denigration, scorn, and personal attack for those same reasons) . Lets see some actual answers. Don't worry we wont scorn you for using too many words: Actual answers require them.

Questions you have inartistically avoided:

1. Where is the actual link between Ideal Gas Law and CoE in regards to the heat energy created by compression of air (or give up on that non-hunting dog and come up with another one if you think it will help explain the created energy in terms of the First Law).

2. What do underground antennae have to do with coupling.

The U.S. Navy is involved with a lot of things that are not fully understood by mainstream science. They, like us all, are controlled by the laws of gravity; for starters ;) 

@Grumpy your question is irrelevant to CoE.  Until you can show evidence of CoE violation, CoE holds.  End of Story.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 24, 2008, 04:26:28 PM
Your clever attempt to dodge this question is a futile attempt to hide the emptiness of your endless banter.  To admit energy "conversion" or "creation" would nullify your reasons for existence and result in your successful suicide.

Come on now.  Let's at least discuss the question before casting it aside.

If energy can not be created, then all the energy in the universe must have been "converted" from some other form of energy - correct?

@Grumpy if you want to have long philosophical discussions on Noether's Theorem and whether it implies that there might be a way to violate CoE, then I think the Steorn Forums are the place for you.  Of course you'll want to decide whether Steorn's never seen free energy machine works by the static path some magnets follow around a closed path as first claimed, or works by waving magnets back and forth at different speeds as they later claimed, or only works when there isn't much energy around as they claimed after their failed demonstration. 

Quote from: Grumpy on June 24, 2008, 04:51:44 PM
Noether's Theorem

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. It is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, which states every symmetry of a physical theory has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance then the conserved quantity is called "energy". In other words, if the theory is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation then its energy (which is canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, theories which are not invariant under shifts in time (for example, systems with time dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy -- unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time invariant again. Since any time-varying theory can be embedded within a time-invariant meta-theory energy conservation can always be recovered by a suitable re-definition of what energy is. Thus conservation of energy is valid in all modern physical theories, such as special and general relativity and quantum theory (including QED).

To Hell with CoE.  Change the rate of entropy (what we call time) and you're not breaking the rules.

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 25, 2008, 12:24:20 AM
@Grumpy if you want to have long philosophical discussions on Noether's Theorem and whether it implies that there might be a way to violate CoE, then I think the Steorn Forums are the place for you.  Of course you'll want to decide whether Steorn's never seen free energy machine works by the static path some magnets follow around a closed path as first claimed, or works by waving magnets back and forth at different speeds as they later claimed, or only works when there isn't much energy around as they claimed after their failed demonstration. 

I see you have nothing more to offer in this discussion.  You cling to the cliff of CoE - which you vaguely understand.  If the question of the source of all of the energ in the universe can not be answered then no one can say that energy convertion devices do not work as claimed.  So, until you can answer the previous question - your claims that energy conversion devices are "fake" or "poppycock" or "scams" is mute.

This is the first thing that little copper-tops like you will never figure out: "time" is not constant

So, with "time" now a variable field, CoE is no longer a problem

(rumor has it that Einstein could not handle the math required to make time variable - who knows for sure?  In his later years he stated this:

Quote"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

)

>So, until you can answer the previous question - your claims that energy conversion devices are "fake" or "poppycock" or "scams" is mute.

Ah, the term is MOOT. Mute means not being able to talk. I just thought someone who knows the secrets of the universe should know the correct usage of a common English word.

@Grumpy
That Einstein quote may be the best I have ever heard ;)
I had to laugh at this statement as well--

QuoteYour clever attempt to dodge this question is a futile attempt to hide the emptiness of your endless banter.  To admit energy "conversion" or "creation" would nullify your reasons for existence and result in your successful suicide.

;D 

I think most of the textbook answers pennies_everywhere has provided will fall like a house of cards in the near future.I have studied physics, quantum mechanics and found too many inconsistencies too many assumptions being made. One of the more laughable was Young's Duality, what a farce, many physics students I have talked to don't believe this pile of rubbish either.

@pennies_everywhere
you may want to re-read Teslas work ;D and I do not believe scalar waves have anything to do with the effects I have measured. One error being made is in using the wrong instruments, if one were to use a passive bi-polar electrostatic charge detector you would know the nature of the fields as well you would know the fields are three dimensional having defined geometries--- unlike the simplistic models you see in your textbooks.

Quote from: Bobbotov on June 25, 2008, 11:06:00 AM
>So, until you can answer the previous question - your claims that energy conversion devices are "fake" or "poppycock" or "scams" is mute.

Ah, the term is MOOT. Mute means not being able to talk. I just thought someone who knows the secrets of the universe should know the correct usage of a common English word.

The use of "mute" was a "Freudian slip" - stick that in your English-literary-genious-wanna-be pipe and smoke on it - Boobotov.

What does "secrets of the universe" and English have to do with each other? - absolutely nothing.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 25, 2008, 12:22:26 PM


What does "secrets of the universe" and English have to do with each other? - absolutely nothing.

Yeah they do. You know nothing about either.

Quote from: Bobbotov on June 25, 2008, 12:27:38 PM
Yeah they do. You know nothing about either.

Keep thinking that - like you're even capable of making that detemination.

What has been now?  Three or four years? You still talk the same smack.  Wasting your mind.  Pennies knows he's wrong - he just doesn't give a crap - he's here for a debate to make is day go by faster - another waste of a mind.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 25, 2008, 12:45:08 PM


What has been now?  Three or four years? You still talk the same smack. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. But that has been true through the whole thread so no surprise. Good online name. Was Dopey already taken?

@Pennies: Since you have no real answers, just tap-dance moves with nothing to back them.... it would appear you are the one lost in a sea of reason... And the sharks are circling ;)

The heat energy CREATED by compression comes from "nowhere" at least in terms of 1867 pre-atomic theory. Any inference to the contrary is added by those who only are wishing the CoE Law covered it as a means of protecting their world-view; but they have absolutely nothing to prove this statement, and so instead endlessly repeat dogmatic denials that are meaningless. Imo, heat from compression is the crack in the Law that will allow other cracks to be someday admitted and examined, finally.

Underground coupling would be "impossible" by accepted transverse EM theory... If you were a "Tesla expert", you would know that Wardenclyffe had little to do with transverse EM coupling; "Traditional" wireless radio was just the "cover story" that was put out after the fact to help suppress what was really being tried there. Underground radio reception and other subterranean "non-transverse EM" energy-related phenomena like power transmission through the ground is a topic that has been dodged and hushed-up by mainstream science for over 100 years. The Navy may have utilized it, but they won't address the strange anomalies it represents (at least openly).

Because Pennies, here is the logic trap you are in: If resonance and coupling were used by Tesla as the primary means of transmitting non-transverse EM, "radiant", energy... Then your world is officially rocked ;)
___________________________

To believe everything that exists is explainable by current means and neatly fits within a stated scientific model may be comforting... But it is risky: The chances of being proved wrong, over and over again, grow every day.... As long as mainstream science remains locked in frozen dogma and unwilling to accept the possibility of their own failure (...not a very scientific method, is it?).

Therefor, dis'ing this possibly very brave and ingenious Bangladeshi scientist without anything to back you is not only wrong and prone to failure, it is unscientific. Don't believe it until you see it; that's fine and proper. But don't automatically discount it, either. This mental mindset is more important than just a mysterious invention in a far-off place: Breaking the knee-jerk negative attitudes is what will be required to finally get "free energy" and other suppressed technologies and medical treatments into the mainstream.

Quote from: Bobbotov on June 25, 2008, 12:49:34 PM
Was Dopey already taken?

Isn't "Dopey" what Bobbotov means?  Not sure of the language, Swahili perhaps.

Hey, I see from this post of your's that you do accept the possibility of "discoveries" - so hope is still in sight.

this argument is being unnecessarily complicated

it comes down to making claims and backing them up with more than just talk

if tomorrow someone posts on this forum that they have figured out the TPU and have seen all the effects described by SM, including the great output power from "nowhere", would the members here believe it without question, or would they request proper proof?

i would hope the latter

if proof is not provided, then either they don't really have what they claim, or they are holding out. i really think it is no more complicated than that, for me anyway

@Grumpy, you are a hoot!  Since you believe in things for which there is no evidence, may I interest you in a ride on Mary Yugo's invisible flying pink unicorn?  I really am quite happy to take your non-refundable deposit CIA.

Kachi fails to show anything extraordinary.  But if you think fake magic acts are the real deal, offer to send him the money he asks for.  Maybe you can even use that ride on Mary's unicorn to hand deliver the cash to him.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 25, 2008, 09:36:57 AM
I see you have nothing more to offer in this discussion.  You cling to the cliff of CoE - which you vaguely understand.  If the question of the source of all of the energ in the universe can not be answered then no one can say that energy convertion devices do not work as claimed.  So, until you can answer the previous question - your claims that energy conversion devices are "fake" or "poppycock" or "scams" is mute.

This is the first thing that little copper-tops like you will never figure out: "time" is not constant

So, with "time" now a variable field, CoE is no longer a problem

(rumor has it that Einstein could not handle the math required to make time variable - who knows for sure?  In his later years he stated this:
)

@allcanadian if you are a believer that CoE will be turned on its head "in the near future" then you sound like a perfect investor for MPI.  If not MPI, Bearden, Bedini, Newman, Lee, will all take your dough.  And they really promise it's all going to happen "real soon".  Never mind they've claimed that for 25 years.

It seems that modern 3D solvers have little difficulty computing nearly exact solutions out to many GHz, confirmed with rigorously designed and tested measurements.  Those solvers all premise on the "textbook" EM theory you, grumpy, jibbguy like to decry.  When you can establish an experiment that doesn't conform to established EM theory, notify the folks in Sweden.

Quote from: allcanadian on June 25, 2008, 11:35:36 AM
@Grumpy
That Einstein quote may be the best I have ever heard ;)
I had to laugh at this statement as well-- ;D 

I think most of the textbook answers pennies_everywhere has provided will fall like a house of cards in the near future.I have studied physics, quantum mechanics and found too many inconsistencies too many assumptions being made. One of the more laughable was Young's Duality, what a farce, many physics students I have talked to don't believe this pile of rubbish either.

@pennies_everywhere
you may want to re-read Teslas work ;D and I do not believe scalar waves have anything to do with the effects I have measured. One error being made is in using the wrong instruments, if one were to use a passive bi-polar electrostatic charge detector you would know the nature of the fields as well you would know the fields are three dimensional having defined geometries--- unlike the simplistic models you see in your textbooks.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 25, 2008, 02:22:03 PM
Isn't "Dopey" what Bobbotov means?  Not sure of the language, Swahili perhaps.

Hey, I see from this post of your's that you do accept the possibility of "discoveries" - so hope is still in sight.

Aw, you're a fan, saving my old Peak Oil posts and everything. Must have a great scrapbook. Besides what I wrote then was spot on. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

@jibbguy I don't think it's sharks you need to be concerned with.  You sound more and more like some worms have devoured your brain.

There is no mysterious missing or extra energy when one compresses gas in a volume.  Every Joule is readily accounted for, and it all balances out.  The idea that there is extra energy is yours alone.  If you believe your idea, write a paper, include a reproducible experiment, and wait for that Nobel Prize.

As to antenna and EM theory and its application to underground antennae, about the only thing you've latched onto that has a bit of truth to it is that there are more propagation modes than TEM.  BFD.  TEM is great on two layer circuit boards without vias.  Everywhere else, we have to deal with other modes.  EM theory still holds just fine.

If you really believe the conspiracy theories you espouse, you had best get a better tin foil helmut.  You see the latest development in psychotronic mind control submodulates the waves so as to penetrate even the best triple thick Reynolds Wrap and Scotch tape headwear such as someone like yourself might don daily. 

Quote from: jibbguy on June 25, 2008, 01:22:05 PM
@Pennies: Since you have no real answers, just tap-dance moves with nothing to back them.... it would appear you are the one lost in a sea of reason... And the sharks are circling ;)

The heat energy CREATED by compression comes from "nowhere" at least in terms of 1867 pre-atomic theory. Any inference to the contrary is added by those who only are wishing the CoE Law covered it as a means of protecting their world-view; but they have absolutely nothing to prove this statement, and so instead endlessly repeat dogmatic denials that are meaningless. Imo, heat from compression is the crack in the Law that will allow other cracks to be someday admitted and examined, finally.

Underground coupling would be "impossible" by accepted transverse EM theory... If you were a "Tesla expert", you would know that Wardenclyffe had little to do with transverse EM coupling; "Traditional" wireless radio was just the "cover story" that was put out after the fact to help suppress what was really being tried there. Underground radio reception and other subterranean "non-transverse EM" energy-related phenomena like power transmission through the ground is a topic that has been dodged and hushed-up by mainstream science for over 100 years. The Navy may have utilized it, but they won't address the strange anomalies it represents (at least openly).

Because Pennies, here is the logic trap you are in: If resonance and coupling were used by Tesla as the primary means of transmitting non-transverse EM, "radiant", energy... Then your world is officially rocked ;)
___________________________

To believe everything that exists is explainable by current means and neatly fits within a stated scientific model may be comforting... But it is risky: The chances of being proved wrong, over and over again, grow every day.... As long as mainstream science remains locked in frozen dogma and unwilling to accept the possibility of their own failure (...not a very scientific method, is it?).

Therefor, dis'ing this possibly very brave and ingenious Bangladeshi scientist without anything to back you is not only wrong and prone to failure, it is unscientific. Don't believe it until you see it; that's fine and proper. But don't automatically discount it, either. This mental mindset is more important than just a mysterious invention in a far-off place: Breaking the knee-jerk negative attitudes is what will be required to finally get "free energy" and other suppressed technologies and medical treatments into the mainstream.

Quote from: pennies_everywhere on June 25, 2008, 07:17:02 PM

If you really believe the conspiracy theories you espouse, you had best get a better tin foil helmut.  You see the latest development in psychotronic mind control submodulates the waves so as to penetrate even the best triple thick Reynolds Wrap and Scotch tape headwear such as someone like yourself might don daily. 

I think this might be just the ticket:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/1527740450_a14f225494.jpg?v=0

Ha Ha!!  ROFLMAO!!!

This argument is bordering on insane. 

Bobbotov - yes, what you wrote was right-on.

Pennies - My version of "energy indepenedence" is not about money, or investors, or power over others.

You and Bobbotov can think whatever you want, say whatever you want, and do whatever makes you happy.  More power (which you will have to pay for) to you!

My friends and I are just a bunch of rednecks, sitting around a black box, drinkin' chilled beer with the lights burning bright white.  Don't let the EV conversion kits fool you.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 25, 2008, 08:01:43 PM


This argument is bordering on insane. 

Well, this is the Lunatic fringe isn't it?

@pennies_everywhere

QuoteIt seems that modern 3D solvers have little difficulty computing nearly exact solutions out to many GHz, confirmed with rigorously designed and tested measurements.  Those solvers all premise on the "textbook" EM theory you, grumpy, jibbguy like to decry.  When you can establish an experiment that doesn't conform to established EM theory, notify the folks in Sweden.

LOL, Do you have there phone number handy?

Quote from: Bobbotov on June 25, 2008, 07:42:03 PM
I think this might be just the ticket:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/1527740450_a14f225494.jpg?v=0

You know, I have pointed this out before, and this is such a common mistake.  That type of hat does nothing.  It is not made of tinfoil, but rather aluminum foil.  I hate to see this type of misinformation spread around.  If you really want to protect yourself from mind control rays, only actual tinfoil will do. 

Here is the MIT study concluding aluminum hats only serve to amplify mind control rays:

http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ (http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/)

And here is an article praising the effectiveness of real tinfoil:

http://www.uncoveror.com/disable.htm (http://www.uncoveror.com/disable.htm)

No thanks necessary.  Just doing my part to help spread the truth.

@Pennies: You should change your forum name to "Straw Man", it would be more appropriate.

Sure, the heat energy balances ... Until the potential energy of the compressed air is added too... Then it does not ;)

Having formulas for computing the value of the heat to the last micro-calorie does not change or explain this. Why would the Nobel people want to look at this? No one else has for over 140 years, lol.. Yet it's true: Added together, it is more energy than was put in to compress the air. And there still is no logical link to an 1867 pre-atomic theory Law as to why the heat energy appears.

Is it really significant? Maybe only to making compressed air vehicles self-run; which may happen in the next few years; some are getting close to it now.

"Transverse wave EM" : The currently accepted basic electrical theory is that "electromagnetic waves are self-propagating transverse oscillating waves of electric and magnetic fields". So it is short-hand for accepted electrical theory.... Are you using other forms of energy? Interesting.

Maybe it's a new conceptual device using derision and scorn to change the debate subject away from the user's ignorance and inability to form rational thought. 

Or perhaps you have a built a system using Longitudinal Diaelectricity, like Tesla did. This would explain your expertise with underground antenna.

________________________


Whether tin foil or aluminum, hats without a ground wire would be poor shields.

Considering that cell phone use could give you brain tumors the size of plums... You never know the technology may become popular yet ;) 

@jibbguy, no the energy balances completely.  There is no surprise energy.  There is no hidden energy.

Yeah sure, balloons are then next frontier for non-existant free energy machines.  Invest heavily jibbguy, how could you possibly go wrong?.

No jibbguy, I am using standard microwave engineering terms. 

"Longitudal Diaelectricity", I love the pseudoscience that gets spewed on the internet.

Quote from: jibbguy on June 26, 2008, 03:28:51 PM
@Pennies: You should change your forum name to "Straw Man", it would be more appropriate.

Sure, the heat energy balances ... Until the potential energy of the compressed air is added too... Then it does not ;)

Having formulas for computing the value of the heat to the last micro-calorie does not change or explain this. Why would the Nobel people want to look at this? No one else has for over 140 years, lol.. Yet it's true: Added together, it is more energy than was put in to compress the air. And there still is no logical link to an 1867 pre-atomic theory Law as to why the heat energy appears.

Is it really significant? Maybe only to making compressed air vehicles self-run; which may happen in the next few years; some are getting close to it now.

"Transverse wave EM" : The currently accepted basic electrical theory is that "electromagnetic waves are self-propagating transverse oscillating waves of electric and magnetic fields". So it is short-hand for accepted electrical theory.... Are you using other forms of energy? Interesting.

Maybe it's a new conceptual device using derision and scorn to change the debate subject away from the user's ignorance and inability to form rational thought. 

Or perhaps you have a built a system using Longitudinal Diaelectricity, like Tesla did. This would explain your expertise with underground antenna.

________________________


Whether tin foil or aluminum, hats without a ground wire would be poor shields.

Considering that cell phone use could give you brain tumors the size of plums... You never know the technology may become popular yet ;) 

Notice how Pennies always talks as if it all a scam, a means to trick investors?

I wonder if Pennies got suckered in a free-energy scam...

It's not about wealth or power at all.  It's about taking charge of your life and your energy needs and freeing yourself from dependence on others that only seek wealth and power. 

So, claims of scams, trickery, or other fraudulent intentions are misplaced.

Quote from: Grumpy on June 27, 2008, 09:36:46 AM
Notice how Pennies always talks as if it all a scam, a means to trick investors?

I wonder if Pennies got suckered in a free-energy scam...

It's not about wealth or power at all.  It's about taking charge of your life and your energy needs and freeing yourself from dependence on others that only seek wealth and power. 

So, claims of scams, trickery, or other fraudulent intentions are misplaced.

Can you name in investor that has gotten rich off of free energy?

Quote from: Bobbotov on June 27, 2008, 09:49:23 AM
Can you name in investor that has gotten rich off of free energy?

Getting rich is no the point.  If you are in it to get rich, you should not focus on having and protecting simple technology, but instead focus on using it.

Back to the original point, our young Bangladeshi has not asked for investors, has he?   He has not offered to sell energy conversion devices for exorbitant fees has he?

"Free energy" - as you call it - is just that - free to anyone can the convert it.

Nice thread hijack everyone. I was thoroughly entertained. Now i'll go back to my beer, chips and banjo (as I scratch my @ss walking away)....