A v-gate of magnets that accelerates a mass so that it's momentum is greater then the attraction of the tip of the V so that it can escape the magnetic field, and move to the next V.
Don't put the V's to close. Seperate them just at the point to where the mass's momentum stops from friction after it escapes the magnetic v gate.
magnetic energy to momentum conversion.
i concur... ;)
and i also know the other sequences you arent revealing.... :o
What's a v-gate? Searching it gives different results. From the spiral setup of magnets to some linear stuff.
And btw Sinewave it's best to share your ideas up front instead of taking the old "I know a secret" route. That way you will trigger other people to spark newer ideas and so on, before you know it lots of people are involved and reach goals much faster.
Quote from: broli on May 29, 2008, 02:27:40 PM
What's a v-gate? Searching it gives different results. From the spiral setup of magnets to some linear stuff.
And btw Sinewave it's best to share your ideas up front instead of taking the old "I know a secret" route. That way you will trigger other people to spark newer ideas and so on, before you know it lots of people are involved and reach goals much faster.
He just means an arrangement of magnets in a V shape. This will naturally cause any ferrous object in the middle of the V to accelerate to the point of the V, assuming the object is on a fixed rail-type path. I have played around with this concept and do not think it is viable. The object cannot generate enough momentum to leave the point of the V and move on to another V. The V is capped at how much acceleration it will give you. If you make the V long and narrow, the object will accelerate too slowly. If you try to make the legs of the V wider, you make the magnetic force to weak at the beginning. The only ways to make it work that I have found are:
1. Introduce gravity to help pull the object away from the point, ala the SMOT. Unfortanately, with the SMOT, you end up lower than you started, so that is also a no go.
2. Have progressively stronger Vs. But the flaw with that is obvious.
V magnet powered back scrubber anyone
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J35JwoTlFvs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J35JwoTlFvs&feature=related)
pc
Cat like the back scrubber @ one I think this gate[properly tuned] has the potential to send it thru the wall like a railgun Chet
V-circle nearly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyQ5--E6LAk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyQ5--E6LAk&feature=related)
pc
Cat and its flying!! Chet
With the right size mass, and the right strength magnets, with the perfect amount of length, and a perfect amount of angle, you can plow through the gate. :D
I have already done it.
If you need more power, did you know that your mass is creating electricity as it is going through the v-gate? Channel that electricity to the other side, and power an electromagnet, weak or not.
A horizonal circle is the best bet. Just like the back srubber style.
:D
Quote from: ramset on May 29, 2008, 08:07:18 PM
Cat like the back scrubber @ one I think this gate[properly tuned] has the potential to send it thru the wall like a railgun Chet
To use intelligence to build weapons that can kill defeats the purpose of being intelligent at all.
But you are correct, the properly tuned V gate/mass ratio can create a lot of momentum in the mass.
utilitarian, from reading your post i can deduce that you are incorrect...and have only experimented with '1' gate and used the wrong material.
1.properly utilized a downard introduction of gravity does not have to be implemented, for linear horizontal movement that is.
2.the moving object will exceed the tip of the v...it will not simpy stop at the tip.
3.it is not necessary to use a v shape topology.
4.the more narrow the corridor the faster the acceleration...but also the stronger the sticky point is.
almost all your statements contradict my actual findings.
broli, im not into giving my ideas up to people who dont take the initiative to discover on their own....but i would gladly share information once i see evidence that they have taken the initiative to actually try.
anyone who has the materials in hand can accomplish this.
--------------------------------------------------
one,:
1.mass can be variable
2.angles do not have to be pinpoint accurate
3.length of magnetic gap does not have to be perfect, it only assist in force...there are 2 magnetic gaps BTW (4 if you take into consideration each polarity)
4.creation of electricity may develop eddy currents, upon attempts of storage...i havent tried to store anything yet..but i visualize using inductance to overcome resistance...and not collecting the energy from the field generating the eddy currents...collect it at a different point...
The V in general is not necessarily the correct shape in and of itself, figure out how the fibanocci sequence and Phi are used to create the V shape you see in a tornado, or water going down the drain, and then recreate this movement.
Quote from: SINEWAVE on May 29, 2008, 10:50:17 PM
1.properly utilized a downard introduction of gravity does not have to be implemented, for linear horizontal movement that is.
2.the moving object will exceed the tip of the v...it will not simpy stop at the tip.
3.it is not necessary to use a v shape topology.
4.the more narrow the corridor the faster the acceleration...but also the stronger the sticky point is.
broli, im not into giving my ideas up to people who dont take the initiative to discover on their own....but i would gladly share information once i see evidence that they have taken the initiative to actually try.
Save us the smugness, ok? We do not need your charity. You can keep your wealth of experimental knowledge to yourself.
The only thing you said that I find true is that yes, the moving object can exceed the tip of the V, but it gets pulled back immediately. It is not possible to propel the object to the next V gate.
The more narrow the corridor the faster the accelration? Not what I have noticed, and how does that even make sense logically? If the legs of the V are long and almost parallel, that means that the next point up the line is only a little bit stronger, magnetically, than where the object already is, so acceleration is slower.
Quote from: utilitarian on June 01, 2008, 11:39:42 AM
Save us the smugness, ok? We do not need your charity. You can keep your wealth of experimental knowledge to yourself.
The only thing you said that I find true is that yes, the moving object can exceed the tip of the V, but it gets pulled back immediately. It is not possible to propel the object to the next V gate.
Utilitarian
Save us the smugness? Who do you think you are speaking for ?
As far as it not being able to propel the object to the next gate look at the V circle in reply 6 I count 3 gates.
Or this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T41_fkVfFNI&feature=related
It travels smoothly through 3 gates then stops because there are no magnets installed in the holes of the 4th gate
Do you have any other disinformation or bad attitudes to share with us ?
gary
Quote from: resonanceman on June 01, 2008, 02:10:52 PM
Utilitarian
Save us the smugness? Who do you think you are speaking for ?
As far as it not being able to propel the object to the next gate look at the V circle in reply 6 I count 3 gates.
Or this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T41_fkVfFNI&feature=related
It travels smoothly through 3 gates then stops because there are no magnets installed in the holes of the 4th gate
Not sure what is going on there, but like I said before, if the Vs are arranged in order of increasing strength, then yes, you can escape a weaker V in favor of a stronger one. The fact that the author of the video did not show a circle of Vs speaks volumes. This concept cannot work.
Quote from: 0ne on May 29, 2008, 09:39:51 PM
With the right size mass, and the right strength magnets, with the perfect amount of length, and a perfect amount of angle, you can plow through the gate. :D
I have already done it.
If you need more power, did you know that your mass is creating electricity as it is going through the v-gate? Channel that electricity to the other side, and power an electromagnet, weak or not.
A horizonal circle is the best bet. Just like the back srubber style.
:D
Are you saying that you have closed the loop using v-gates - ie. perpetual motion? If so, a video would be nice...
Quote from: utilitarian on June 01, 2008, 08:14:49 PM
Not sure what is going on there, but like I said before, if the Vs are arranged in order of increasing strength, then yes, you can escape a weaker V in favor of a stronger one. The fact that the author of the video did not show a circle of Vs speaks volumes. This concept cannot work.
Why is it that a skeptical viewpoint here carries weight with no proof ...............but a belief that something works requires proof?
My examples both show magnets traveling smoothly between Vs there is no evidence that the latter Vs are stronger .
The fact that they are not full circles only means that they are not full circles ....... No proof that they can't work in full circles can be taken from the video just because they are not set up in full circles ............
I have noticed that people working at suppressing an idea often take 1% evidence and call it 100% proof that it won't work .................All to often they are believed .
gary
utilitarian, why so hostile?
Hey guys,
Please forgive my ignorance as my interest is way greater than my knowledge.
I just found this little track video with V shaped magnets.
The cart seems to go past the point of the V.
http://fdp.nu/shared/files/Calloways%20Perendev/CallVtrak2.MPG (http://fdp.nu/shared/files/Calloways%20Perendev/CallVtrak2.MPG)
Rich
Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 02, 2008, 04:14:27 AM
utilitarian, why so hostile?
- check his past posts - he is an out-and-out sceptic, with any positive feedback almost always including a cautionary side-note.
The real question you should be asking is what's the real purpose of him and his ilk - check out Archer Quinn's thread and the back-posts of a few of the prominent critics there - you should notice they joined this forum specifically to debunk Archer - some have many dozens of posts, all critical, and are posting to no other threads!
imo - all paid debunkers...
thank you for that note, i have tried doing a user search a few days ago, but the function did not retrieve any results.
there is no reason for a skeptic to be on this forum, why would they waste their time here?
Quote from: ragnew on June 02, 2008, 09:48:13 AM
Hey guys,
Please forgive my ignorance as my interest is way greater than my knowledge.
I just found this little track video with V shaped magnets.
The cart seems to go past the point of the V.
http://fdp.nu/shared/files/Calloways%20Perendev/CallVtrak2.MPG (http://fdp.nu/shared/files/Calloways%20Perendev/CallVtrak2.MPG)
Rich
Rich
Yes It does go past the point of the V .............If you listen to some people here that is impossible .
Of course everything with technology is impossible until someone figures out how to do it .
gary
Quote from: Sprocket on June 02, 2008, 11:15:52 AM
- check his past posts - he is an out-and-out sceptic, with any positive feedback almost always including a cautionary side-note.
The real question you should be asking is what's the real purpose of him and his ilk - check out Archer Quinn's thread and the back-posts of a few of the prominent critics there - you should notice they joined this forum specifically to debunk Archer - some have many dozens of posts, all critical, and are posting to no other threads!
imo - all paid debunkers...
Personally I think that the fervor that Utilitarian showed is a sine that there is alot of promise in this idea
Another line I expect to pop up soon is that ALL magnetic motors demagnatise the magnets ........... maybe some do .......but such a broad generalization is kind of like saying " if man was meant to fly he would have wings .......... we got plenty of wings now ........
Personally I don't think that most of these guys are paid debunkers .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they are just people with a little education...........and LOTS of ego .
In my opinion the paid debunkers would be much harder to spot .
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to control the resistance is to lead it yourself .
I would expect the paid debunkers to actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would be with the few critical points needed to get it right that they would stear you wrong .
gary
(resonance)
"Why is it that a skeptical viewpoint here carries weight with no proof ...............but a belief that something works requires proof?
My examples both show magnets traveling smoothly between Vs there is no evidence that the latter Vs are stronger .
The fact that they are not full circles only means that they are not full circles ....... No proof that they can't work in full circles can be taken from the video just because they are not set up in full circles ............
I have noticed that people working at suppressing an idea often take 1% evidence and call it 100% proof that it won't work .................All to often they are believed .
gary"
(Sprocket)
"... - check his past posts - he is an out-and-out sceptic, with any positive feedback almost always including a cautionary side-note.
The real question you should be asking is what's the real purpose of him and his ilk - check out Archer Quinn's thread and the back-posts of a few of the prominent critics there - you should notice they joined this forum specifically to debunk Archer - some have many dozens of posts, all critical, and are posting to no other threads!
imo - all paid debunkers... "
(SINEWAVE)
"... there is no reason for a skeptic to be on this forum, why would they waste their time here?"
(resonance)
"... Another line I expect to pop up soon is that ALL magnetic motors demagnatise the magnets ........... maybe some do .......but such a broad generalization is kind of like saying " if man was meant to fly he would have wings .......... we got plenty of wings now ........
Personally I don't think that most of these guys are paid debunkers .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they are just people with a little education...........and LOTS of ego .
In my opinion the paid debunkers would be much harder to spot .
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to control the resistance is to lead it yourself .
I would expect the paid debunkers to actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would be with the few critical points needed to get it right that they would stear you wrong .
gary "
So sad.... And you really believe what you wrote? :(
Paid debunker? You think there are paying jobs for debunkers? Not much money in that racket, sorry.
Hate to break the news, but magnets simply do not work the way you guys are proposing. Good luck with your circular V tracks. Notice how none of the videos ever have a circle. Wonder why? Because their little series of Vs or whatever the shapes are have a perpetually increasing magnetic pull with each successive step. When the circle is made, you obviously have to return to the first and weakest stage, and so motion stops. Happens every single time.
@One
what type of magnets did you use and what size,amount,pull force?
any info would help
The Key to perpetual motion is the pendulum fulcrum.
http://www.freewebs.com/boltoncomputers/PM.htm
Quote from: utilitarian on June 02, 2008, 04:02:10 PM
Paid debunker? You think there are paying jobs for debunkers? Not much money in that racket, sorry.
Because their little series of Vs or whatever the shapes are have a perpetually increasing magnetic pull with each successive step.
so your saying a howard johnson car toy wont work?
want proof of a debunker?
copy and paste this into Google, it will be the first result: and 'Big Oil Rep's" last statement at the bottom of the page, of about 5-6.
keywords: big oil rep audioman
of course someone will say, he's not really a debunker.
Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 03, 2008, 12:17:57 AM
so your saying a howard johnson car toy wont work?
want proof of a debunker?
copy and paste this into Google, it will be the first result: and 'Big Oil Rep's" last statement at the bottom of the page, of about 5-6.
keywords: big oil rep audioman
of course someone will say, he's not really a debunker.
OK, how dense are you? I have read many topics in that forum, and the guy with the "Big Oil Rep" nick is a long time and respected member there. The nick is meant to be satirical, and the post where he admits to being a paid debunker is an obvious joke.
I do think what he said was pretty funny: suppressing OU devices is no harder than suppressing pixies.
And did you even read what he said. The speed at which things spread on the Internet makes any attempts at suppression futile. Things can get copied and pasted millions times in one day. The cost of reproduction is nil. Try suppressing that.
And since when telling people not to read something or not to believe in something have that desired effect?
Ive always thought that the V gate itself should be mounted to a wheel along the edge(where you would normally mount a tire,so it must be wide) and fix bars postioned around the circumference at 1,2,3...12 oclock so the V gate has multiple drives along it to push it past any fixing points.Has anyone tried this??????
This is a debate easily settled.
Make a horizontal, complete circular V track and see if the object riding it continues to accelerate.
There is no shame in someone having an idea and trying it out.
There is also no shame in being a skeptic.
I am both, however in this case I am the latter.
ERS
Quote from: resonanceman on June 02, 2008, 12:22:36 PM
Personally I think that the fervor that Utilitarian showed is a sine that there is alot of promise in this idea
Another line I expect to pop up soon is that ALL magnetic motors demagnatise the magnets ........... maybe some do .......but such a broad generalization is kind of like saying " if man was meant to fly he would have wings .......... we got plenty of wings now ........
Personally I don't think that most of these guys are paid debunkers .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they are just people with a little education...........and LOTS of ego .
In my opinion the paid debunkers would be much harder to spot .
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to control the resistance is to lead it yourself .
I would expect the paid debunkers to actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would be with the few critical points needed to get it right that they would stear you wrong .
gary
Your point about the magnets is relevant - in another forum (ATS) and before Steorn's 'revelations' turned into a farce, this "demagnetising effect" was the debunkers main point of attack - this despite any real proof that it actually occurs... btw, this forum also 'outed' a NASA employee, well known to fellow-scientist posters, as a paid-debunker - something he actually freely admitted to! Apparently there is a budget allocated to this type of thing... Also, as I posted in another thread here, one of the well-respected members here had been testing this conjecture for over 6 months and had found absolutely no reduction in field strength during this time - anyone remember who this was? - I'd like to know if he has continued testing.
Quote from: spinner on June 02, 2008, 03:42:13 PM.....
Personally I don't think that most of these guys are paid debunkers .........I don't see them as smart enough .
I think they are just people with a little education...........and LOTS of ego .
In my opinion the paid debunkers would be much harder to spot .
I think it was Stallen that said ..... the best way to control the resistance is to lead it yourself .
I would expect the paid debunkers to actually be helpful most of the time ......... it would be with the few critical points needed to get it right that they would stear you wrong .
gary "
So sad.... And you really believe what you wrote? :(
I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting. Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!. However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts! Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread. 'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks! So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...
Quote from: Sprocket on June 03, 2008, 11:11:37 AM
I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting. Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!. However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts! Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread. 'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks! So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...
All it would take to shut up us "debunkers" is one experiment, replicated and validated, showing a self-sustaining machine based on permanent magnets. Just one. What's the problem?
Quote from: utilitarian on June 03, 2008, 01:17:34 AM
OK, how dense are you? I have read many topics in that forum, and the guy with the "Big Oil Rep" nick is a long time and respected member there. The nick is meant to be satirical, and the post where he admits to being a paid debunker is an obvious joke.
I do think what he said was pretty funny: suppressing OU devices is no harder than suppressing pixies.
And did you even read what he said. The speed at which things spread on the Internet makes any attempts at suppression futile. Things can get copied and pasted millions times in one day. The cost of reproduction is nil. Try suppressing that.
And since when telling people not to read something or not to believe in something have that desired effect?
So are you saying a howard johnson toy car track doesnt work?....yes or no?
Quote from: Sprocket on June 03, 2008, 11:11:37 AM
I agree with you to an extent - no doubt there are a few "idiots" posting. Also, I suspect some of the most "respected" members here are probably not what they claim either!. However, I have seen it again and again in various forums, where 'newbie' posters join up in droves with the sole aim of disrupting a threads flow - this can be far more effective than reasoned intelligent posts! Just look at Archer Quinn's thread, especially the back-posts of the newbies - many expend huge amounts of effort in posting purely negative crap, and just to that thread. 'Legendre' for instance, had last posted back in 2006 but has posted lengthy posts there over 40 times in the last few weeks! So imo, 'low-brow' and 'high-brow' debunking methods are very much in use...
Sprocket
I agree that suppresion of ideas is very much in effect here .
It takes many forms .
I have come to belive that this site is totally useless as a place to openly develop an idea .
I have a few ideas that I have been researching for many years .
There is no way I will talk about them here .
A new unproven idea here is nothing except skeptic bait
In most cases sharing a new idea here only gets you lots of posts about why it won't work .
gary
double post deleated
Quote from: utilitarian on June 03, 2008, 11:39:35 AM
All it would take to shut up us "debunkers" is one experiment, replicated and validated, showing a self-sustaining machine based on permanent magnets. Just one. What's the problem?
I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...
But two brief points. The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature" would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on. This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up. Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR). They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere). LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs. So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...
Quote from: resonanceman on June 03, 2008, 12:57:16 PM
Sprocket
I agree that suppresion of ideas is very much in effect here .
It takes many forms .
I have come to belive that this site is totally useless as a place to openly develop an idea .
I have a few ideas that I have been researching for many years .
There is no way I will talk about them here .
A new unproven idea here is nothing except skeptic bait
In most cases sharing a new idea here only gets you lots of posts about why it won't work .
gary
These forums still are pretty good at dissimenating info - you just have to tyr and ignore the background noise. Have you noticed that some topics seem to be ignored by the debunkers - gravity wheels for instance. Maybe the 300+ years and no results has something to do with it :D
Quote from: Sprocket on June 03, 2008, 05:18:41 PM
I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...
But two brief points. The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature" would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on. This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up. Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR). They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere). LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs. So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...
Sprocket
Good example ....... in my opinion anyone with a brain can see that there is something to cold fusion . I followed it for years after the news first broke .
Although they are still lying about it .............. It looks like they are starting to bring it back .
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4833.0.html
A quote from the article in the link above
Quote
While Arata?s demonstration looked promising to his audience, the real test is still to come: duplication. Many scientists and others are now recalling the infamous 1989 demonstration by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, who claimed to produce controlled nuclear fusion in a glass jar at room temperature. However, no one - including Fleischmann and Pons - could duplicate the experiment, leading many people to consider cold fusion a pseudoscience to this day.
There were dozens of people that successfully duplicated the experment . Some of them traveled the country showing people there results . All these people are forgotten .
One of the problems with duplicating the results seemed to be with palladiem ....... I read that some of it worked ........and some of it didn't. If you got a good batch of paladium you would get good results every time . I didn't hear if anyone found out what it was that was causing the different results with different batches .
It was very clear to me that most of the replications failed because they were designed to fail . It isn't very hard to fail at getting something to work if getting it working may put your big fat job at risk .
gary
Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 03, 2008, 12:36:36 PM
So are you saying a howard johnson toy car track doesnt work?....yes or no?
I regret to say I am not familiar with that device. Do you have a link to more information about. Google search did give me much.
Quote from: Jerryx on June 02, 2008, 06:16:11 PM
The Key to perpetual motion is the pendulum fulcrum.
http://www.freewebs.com/boltoncomputers/PM.htm
Sorry Jerryx,
This does not work. You need more energy to lift the hammer than the hammer imparts to the pendulum. Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. If you don't believe me, look at the simulation below.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: Sprocket on June 03, 2008, 05:18:41 PM
I have you at a slight disadvantage - I am a voracious reader of this forum and am well familiar with your posts and opinions...
But two brief points. The abundance of debunkers on FE forums makes it clear that there is a supression agenda - these individuals claim to not even believe in OU, yet many expend huge energy and time posting, when "human-nature" would dictate that most 'ordinary' sceptics would critique something for awhile, get fustrated that the 'FE-idiots' just didn't get Newton and move on. This does not happen - you have been posting you overtly negative stuff since Nov '07 with no let-up. Second, while validation is important, history has shown that the scientific establishment only adheres to scientific principles when it doesn't conflict with the wishes of bigoil - one of the most deplorable examples of this concerned MIT - until then, seen as one of the true bastions of science - and cold fusion (LENR). They were guilty of manipulating test data to indicate that no LENR was occurring - Dr. Eugene Mallove even resigned from MIT over it at the time - when in fact the 'real' results showed that tell-tale tritium was indeed present, and this was further confirmed by another insider many years later (it's on YouTube somewhere). LENR has also been replicated hundreds of time since by independent labs. So, if you cannot get someone as 'prestigious' as MIT to tell the truth, why should we expect EE's lower in the food-chain to act any differently...
1. The reason the skeptics stick around is the same reason Lawrence Tseung's thread is so huge. When someone keeps saying something utterly ridiculous and is vehement about it, it attracts many to give their two cents. It's just human nature. Overunity claims particularly lend themselves to getting people to chime in, because they tend to be really out there, and the proponents are very dedicated.
Notice how when someone posts something that is just obviously true, there is nothing to dispute, and the topic is over. There is nothing else to say.
2. I will give you points for at least not blaming Mallove's robbery/murder on big oil. However, there is no evidence to support interference by big oil. There was some kind of dispute, you're right, but I do not remember any shenanigans like that.
another word for 'debunker' is 'marketer'....any car dealership has a paid debunker working for them.
i use to work in SEO and i would steer no less than 400,000 people per day and i literally had the tools to spam millions per day, the internet doesnt just make propagation of information easier, it also makes it easier to manipulate.
i use to know crackheads that would shoot you for a $20 rock..why wouldnt a group of people with the most violent history in mankind do it to protect $100 billion per year?
right now i could tell utilitarian a hj toy is a firetruck with sirens and he would know none the better....get it?
Quote from: SINEWAVE on June 03, 2008, 12:17:57 AM
so your saying a howard johnson car toy wont work?
No, it doesn't. Try closing the loop and it stuffs up like all the ramp devices SMOT and all. No-one to this date has proved propulsion using magnets. There have been many claims, all of them dubious, to say the least. There is NO such thing as a working permanent magnet motor to date.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: resonanceman on June 03, 2008, 06:24:08 PM
.....There were dozens of people that successfully duplicated the experment . Some of them traveled the country showing people there results . All these people are forgotten .
One of the problems with duplicating the results seemed to be with palladiem ....... I read that some of it worked ........and some of it didn't. If you got a good batch of paladium you would get good results every time . I didn't hear if anyone found out what it was that was causing the different results with different batches .
It was very clear to me that most of the replications failed because they were designed to fail . It isn't very hard to fail at getting something to work if getting it working may put your big fat job at risk .
gary
Yes, I too recall watching the 7 o clock evening news at the time, thinking "cool!". The problems in replicating experiments was a major bugbear at the time, but I remember reading, years ago now, that these problems had been sorted and 100% of setups worked first-time. Indeed, I also recall them saying then that they also had a working mathematical basis for LENR and understood why there were so many failures initially. Reminds me a bit of the sporadic results they seem to be getting on the 'nuclear' thread here...
Project Submission:
The new Gearturbine, power by barr, with retrodynamic dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, at non parasitic looses system, and over-unit engine. Details:
www.geocities.com/gearturbine