You know, I just can't help it but have skepticism about all these motors and things. For one, this "Bedini" motor thing has batteries in there. The result is supposedly that more energy comes out the "out" terminal than goes into the "in" terminal. Which therefore makes me wonder, why bother with the batteries? Why not just hook the out to the in and then give the flywheel a kick? If more energy comes out the out, then when the initial pulse here is given, it should self-amplify (or pick up more energy from the vacuum) as it passes through the machine, so the wheel should start to speed up "all on its own". What I'm wondering about though is why this has not been done. If these motors really do work, this should work, no? Why shouldn't it? That's the only way to really prove beyond a reasonable doubt it works -- no batteries or other power systems in the loop -- just the mysterious device itself, and then give it a push and see if it accelerates itself. Only sustained acceleration would prove beyond a reasonable doubt this device actually works. If you don't want it to burst then just have some brakes on there (or yank out the coil or some other fail safe). If it can sustain an acceleration, then we can see it is working, as obviously more energy is coming into the wheel than our push put in.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now having a real, working machine that actually does indeed produce over-unity would be extraordinary proof. But the way these things are rigged seems to leave open the possibility the battery could be supplying all the energy, and since it's infeasible to put up a video that is as long as the estimated lifespan of the battery with no over-unity effects, they do not seem to show that such extraordinary proof exists, and so I don't believe the claim.
Any comment on why this test is bad or problematic or otherwise hasn't been done?
Quote from: mike3 on September 18, 2008, 05:58:25 PM
You know, I just can't help it but have skepticism about all these motors and things. For one, this "Bedini" motor thing has batteries in there. The result is supposedly that more energy comes out the "out" terminal than goes into the "in" terminal. Which therefore makes me wonder, why bother with the batteries? Why not just hook the out to the in and then give the flywheel a kick? If more energy comes out the out, then when the initial pulse here is given, it should self-amplify (or pick up more energy from the vacuum) as it passes through the machine, so the wheel should start to speed up "all on its own". What I'm wondering about though is why this has not been done. If these motors really do work, this should work, no? Why shouldn't it? That's the only way to really prove beyond a reasonable doubt it works -- no batteries or other power systems in the loop -- just the mysterious device itself, and then give it a push and see if it accelerates itself. Only sustained acceleration would prove beyond a reasonable doubt this device actually works. If you don't want it to burst then just have some brakes on there (or yank out the coil or some other fail safe). If it can sustain an acceleration, then we can see it is working, as obviously more energy is coming into the wheel than our push put in.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Now having a real, working machine that actually does indeed produce over-unity would be extraordinary proof. But the way these things are rigged seems to leave open the possibility the battery could be supplying all the energy, and since it's infeasible to put up a video that is as long as the estimated lifespan of the battery with no over-unity effects, they do not seem to show that such extraordinary proof exists, and so I don't believe the claim.
Any comment on why this test is bad or problematic or otherwise hasn't been done?
With respect you misunderstand the Bedini Motor. It is not OU or even unity. In fact it is very inneficient, around 40% - 50% efficiency electrically. Any gains are claimed to be seen in the battery when it has been conditioned. This is why it's referred to as an energiser, not a battery charger. A lot input energy is required for battery conditioning, even with a new battery. It does beg the question is it all worthwhile. That's down to the opinion of anyone who has had the time and patience to go through this process with all the verifying load testing that is involved, not for people who have never gone through the complete process.
Hoppy
Which of course makes me wonder as to why bother with the thing in the first place. If it does not provide any more energy out than you put in (i.e. is not "over unity"), but is actually an _under_-unity device, what's its point? It just doesn't make any sense. Then you just have an energy waster, not an energy source. Why is everyone so amazed at trying to build this thing? Just a fun "toy"? What?
And what the heck does this "battery conditioning" mean? How does the _battery_ need to have some sort of special property?
The whole point is the SSG is used as a demo to show how to rejuvinate "dead" batteries. I have already recovered a couple of batteries that would not hold a charge anymore. The SSG produces pulses that clean up the sulphation in a dead battery. Also if the unit is built and tuned correctly the battery will become more efficient and therefore able to hold a larger charge than it could originally. I have built one and it works just like the people on the monopole site said it would. citfta
Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 01:43:36 AM
Which of course makes me wonder as to why bother with the thing in the first place. If it does not provide any more energy out than you put in (i.e. is not "over unity"), but is actually an _under_-unity device, what's its point? It just doesn't make any sense. Then you just have an energy waster, not an energy source. Why is everyone so amazed at trying to build this thing? Just a fun "toy"? What?
And what the heck does this "battery conditioning" mean? How does the _battery_ need to have some sort of special property?
As citfta points out, its just for learning and enjoyment purposes. Its not a magic machine, just simple EE stuff, an electro-mechanical oscillator which can rejuvenate and re-charge sulfated batteries. The same thing can be done a lot simpler with solid state but the spinning wheel looks nice and can make an attractive feature in the garden or novel fan for the house (matter of opinion of course). If some of the coil discharge is fed back (back-popped) to the primary, the power requirements are low, so a small PV panel can be used to run it as a garden feature (COP infinity!).
The real McCoy if it exists is the property of John Bedini and he is understandably not going to reveal this and jeopardise his commercial interests.
Hoppy
Bedini motor is a great introduction to back EMF and coil work it's an easy way of generating very fast transients, plus you have the thrill of a moving motor. I salute all the Bedini builders, great work, keep it up, beats staring into a plasma screen spouting Orwellian newspeak all day.
The skills, concepts and understanding gained from actually building something physical cannot be learnt from books, and those skills can always be used in other areas, so even if a Bedini motor does not yield COP>1 then the experimenter can take the gleaned skills and apply them to other areas that may prove very fruitful.
Also the very act of trying to build for COP>1 is the first step to achieving it. And IMHO it is a very necessary step.
Quote from: Yucca on October 01, 2008, 07:31:02 AM
Bedini motor is a great introduction to back EMF and coil work it's an easy way of generating very fast transients, plus you have the thrill of a moving motor. I salute all the Bedini builders, great work, keep it up, beats staring into a plasma screen spouting Orwellian newspeak all day.
You mean this thing I'm typing messages into right now? Since that's the screen I stare at quite a bit.
Quote from: Yucca on October 01, 2008, 07:31:02 AM
The skills, concepts and understanding gained from actually building something physical cannot be learnt from books, and those skills can always be used in other areas, so even if a Bedini motor does not yield COP>1 then the experimenter can take the gleaned skills and apply them to other areas that may prove very fruitful.
Also the very act of trying to build for COP>1 is the first step to achieving it. And IMHO it is a very necessary step.
Well, I suppose, but if one wants to seriously have a good shot at getting free energy one must have some theory as to how it could be obtained. Then try and build what that theory suggests would work, and see if it does, which will test the theory. Theory points the way for what to build. Just trying to "build for free energy" doesn't do much until you know what direction to go to have a serious shot at getting it.
So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm "A skeptical look at the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden"
Fave quote:
"The more you look into it, the more the question becomes not 'why did the MEG project fail?' but rather 'how on earth did they manage to hold it together for so long.'"
http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm
At least here though one had some theory to critique and examine (it flopped). I'm not sure what the "theory" is behind the "Bedini motor". Obviously we need some better research and methods if one wants to really uncover the physics behind "real" free energy.
Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 03:11:38 PM
So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:
This is what motivates people to try all sorts of strange and unconventional approaches. After all the conventional approaches have so far failed, so why not try spinning wheels, the MEG, pyramids, crystals and anything else that comes to a creative mind. Life can be fun if it's not taken too seriously. I mean look at those silly men in their ridiculous looking flying machines all those years ago. I'm sure they enjoyed themeselves a lot of the time jumping off cliffs and landing with a bump. These guys were ridiculed plenty but history shows that their efforts were not in vain!
Hoppy
Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 03:11:38 PM
You mean this thing I'm typing messages into right now? Since that's the screen I stare at quite a bit.
Well, I suppose, but if one wants to seriously have a good shot at getting free energy one must have some theory as to how it could be obtained. Then try and build what that theory suggests would work, and see if it does, which will test the theory. Theory points the way for what to build. Just trying to "build for free energy" doesn't do much until you know what direction to go to have a serious shot at getting it.
So far, not one single working device has yet been thoroughly and rigorously demonstrated. Another craze, the "MEG" (Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, don't know if you heard about it) was also a flop, and the theory behind it was revealed to have serious flaws:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/bearden.htm "A skeptical look at the MEG claims of Thomas Bearden"
Fave quote:
"The more you look into it, the more the question becomes not 'why did the MEG project fail?' but rather 'how on earth did they manage to hold it together for so long.'"
http://www.phact.org/e/z/BeardenReview.htm
At least here though one had some theory to critique and examine (it flopped). I'm not sure what the "theory" is behind the "Bedini motor". Obviously we need some better research and methods if one wants to really uncover the physics behind "real" free energy.
I meant telivision, scripted viewing. I wasnÃ,´t implying that you are guilty of watching too much TV, just stating that a person building a Bedini motor is being more productive than someone watching TV.
I donÃ,´t think itÃ,´s necessary to use or know theory in order to discover new things, thatÃ,´s like saying explorers of old needed maps in order to discover new lands. Also existing theories cannot explain Griggs Hydrosonic Pumps, you can build your own GHSP and see COP>1 using calorimetery.
I agree that it would be good to have better research procedures and theories in free energy research, but usually these theories follow in the footsteps of the original discovery which is often an anomoly spotted whilst looking for something else. So hopefuly in the end we will have a new or extended set of theories to use in FE research.
I have read a little about motionless electromagnetic generator, but donÃ,´t know enough to comment yet.
Actually I don't watch TV anymore since TV service was cut off at our house.
Quote from: Hoppy on October 01, 2008, 07:19:52 AM
As citfta points out, its just for learning and enjoyment purposes. Its not a magic machine, just simple EE stuff, an electro-mechanical oscillator which can rejuvenate and re-charge sulfated batteries. The same thing can be done a lot simpler with solid state but the spinning wheel looks nice and can make an attractive feature in the garden or novel fan for the house (matter of opinion of course). If some of the coil discharge is fed back (back-popped) to the primary, the power requirements are low, so a small PV panel can be used to run it as a garden feature (COP infinity!).
So what happens if you want actual free energy, or to figure out whether or not real "free energy" is possible? (As you said it was "under unity" so it does not yield any "free energy".)
Quote from: Hoppy on October 01, 2008, 07:19:52 AM
The real McCoy if it exists is the property of John Bedini and he is understandably not going to reveal this and jeopardise his commercial interests.
Hoppy
And that sucks, you know. (I.e. I do not agree with the practice.)
If one has a free energy device one should give it up to the world, forget about profit and give out the device to help the peoples of the world, to bring cheap energy to those people who need it most in the poor regions of our globe, and so on. But alas greed gets in the way and the commercial interests unfortunately take to the fore.
Furthermore does this mean that he will never release it ever, at all, and so if it does work the invention will be lost forever? Gosh, no wonder I hate prioritizing "commercial interests". What if it
does work?
Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 08:12:50 PM
So what happens if you want actual free energy, or to figure out whether or not real "free energy" is possible? (As you said it was "under unity" so it does not yield any "free energy".)
well, you gotta get off your collective surplus and start trying to replicate...
Quote from: mike3 on October 01, 2008, 08:12:50 PM
And that sucks, you know. (I.e. I do not agree with the practice.) If one has a free energy device one should give it up to the world, forget about profit and give out the device to help the peoples of the world, to bring cheap energy to those people who need it most in the poor regions of our globe, and so on. But alas greed gets in the way and the commercial interests unfortunately take to the fore.
Furthermore does this mean that he will never release it ever, at all, and so if it does work the invention will be lost forever? Gosh, no wonder I hate prioritizing "commercial interests". What if it does work?
oh yes the usual "these damn greedy bastards"... how boring. if you're so altruistic why aren't you building and showing? how much of your paycheck did you give to "the poor peoples of the world" last pay period? can't bring yourself to forget about your profit margin either can you? yeah, greed does get in the way doesn't it?
what if it does work? i doubt you will know, you will probably be here whining about greed and wondering why no one has delivered your silver platter to you...
@ mike3
I understand your frustration and your skepticism if you have actually built and experimented with the Bedini "Energizers" as I have for the last few years.
The OU is not in the energizer but in the charged batteries so you can't make it self run without batteries, apparently replacing the batteries with caps don't work on some of these circuits, although I've seen one on Utube ::)
I've seen plenty of anomalous effects on my setups but OU still eludes me...there's tons of info on these setups but I'm just not hitting it lucky yet I guess.... :P
Is there anyone out there that can run a charged battery as OU with accurate measurments or better yet their house on this tech? After looking at some of Bedini's videos I still don't see how he could run his shop on his best of the best setups, of course I could be wrong (as usual) :-\
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 01, 2008, 09:30:16 PM
well, you gotta get off your collective surplus and start trying to replicate...
oh yes the usual "these damn greedy bastards"... how boring. if you're so altruistic why aren't you building and showing? how much of your paycheck did you give to "the poor peoples of the world" last pay period? can't bring yourself to forget about your profit margin either can you? yeah, greed does get in the way doesn't it?
what if it does work? i doubt you will know, you will probably be here whining about greed and wondering why no one has delivered your silver platter to you...
Yes, so Bedini is getting rich off sitting on a free energy invention his entire life, out of fear someone may steal it or otherwise "compromise his commercial interests". What commercial interests? There are no commercial interests if nothing is being sold! This is some genius profit scheme:
1. Invent an overunity device which is potentially worth billions
2. Never disclose it
3. Die poor
If Bedini was just a little smarter, maybe he would at least start selling a little energy so he could make a some money he could enjoy right now before he gets too old to enjoy it ever.
I think the obvious answer is that he does not have a free energy device and that is the end of that.
@ All
I didn't mean to discourage anyone from messing around with JB's circuits even though you may be skeptic such as I am (that's why I keep trying), as a matter of fact I've bought some of his spin offs such as the FEG book and video as well as the RC-2A12-2 to contribute to his research but as I mentioned I just haven't been lucky enough to show any gains from the circuits I've built so far or the charger, hopefully JB will step forward eventually and show us and not just tell us because so far no go on my end.
Wish everyone the best and hope you find enough of the elusive OU to run your house or your car ;D
Regards,
Paul
Quote from: utilitarian on October 02, 2008, 01:55:11 AM
Yes, so Bedini is getting rich off sitting on a free energy invention his entire life, out of fear someone may steal it or otherwise "compromise his commercial interests". What commercial interests? There are no commercial interests if nothing is being sold! This is some genius profit scheme:
1. Invent an overunity device which is potentially worth billions
2. Never disclose it
3. Die poor
If Bedini was just a little smarter, maybe he would at least start selling a little energy so he could make a some money he could enjoy right now before he gets too old to enjoy it ever.
I think the obvious answer is that he does not have a free energy device and that is the end of that.
my post was not directed to you, nor did you address any of the questions i posed, so why are you quoting my post? shouldn't you be quoting mike3's post?
i am curious though, how does one go about "getting rich off sitting on a free energy invention his entire life" and then "Die poor"? how does one get rich when nothing is being sold?
if you were a little smarter you maybe you would omit things like contradictions from your "genius profit scheme" analysis.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 01, 2008, 09:30:16 PM
well, you gotta get off your collective surplus and start trying to replicate...
oh yes the usual "these damn greedy bastards"... how boring. if you're so altruistic why aren't you building and showing? how much of your paycheck did you give to "the poor peoples of the world" last pay period? can't bring yourself to forget about your profit margin either can you? yeah, greed does get in the way doesn't it?
what if it does work? i doubt you will know, you will probably be here whining about greed and wondering why no one has delivered your silver platter to you...
Look: If I invented a working device, and I could scientifically prove it works, I'd give it all to the world. I, however, have not done such a thing and my present situation makes doing it tough. First off I'd probably have to go to a University and study Physics for a while, but not with the intent of getting a job as a physicist (and by not getting that type of job one eliminates the possibility of "risking" it via pursuit of unorthodox avenues like the "free energy" stuff); rather just to learn physics so I can know the ins and outs of known theory (plus get experience with scientific method so as to not fall into the forms of pathologic science these claims are notorious for) and so the limits and where to look for where known theories may be wrong or inapplicable, then look and do experiment for new theories in that area, and see if any of those may yield any insight into "free energy". Then would come trying to actually assemble the devices if any are discovered, and finally testing.
And I do not have the gobs of money you think I have. So how could I replicate all these other devices people have already claimed to have developed? Never mind there are a gazillion claims and not all can work, in fact given how mutually contradictory all the various "pet physics" each one has attached are I'd be surprised if even some of them worked. The fact that problems are discovered with the underlying "science" is what renders such devices suspect to me. Why spend what little bits of money I have available on devices that I have good reasons to doubt will work? (E.g. the MEG thingy.)
And if I cannot know it is working then what on the sweet Earth is the point of bothering?
Quote from: Goat on October 02, 2008, 01:08:26 AM
@ mike3
I understand your frustration and your skepticism if you have actually built and experimented with the Bedini "Energizers" as I have for the last few years.
The OU is not in the energizer but in the charged batteries so you can't make it self run without batteries, apparently replacing the batteries with caps don't work on some of these circuits, although I've seen one on Utube ::)
I've seen plenty of anomalous effects on my setups but OU still eludes me...there's tons of info on these setups but I'm just not hitting it lucky yet I guess.... :P
Is there anyone out there that can run a charged battery as OU with accurate measurments or better yet their house on this tech? After looking at some of Bedini's videos I still don't see how he could run his shop on his best of the best setups, of course I could be wrong (as usual) :-\
Regards,
Paul
Actually I haven't built any of these devices (see my other post about lacking money). Rather I'm examining the claims out of curiosity, to see just how good they are or what they are supposed to actually do. After all, it would be great to find some source of "free" energy. That's why my skepticism comes up however, such as with these Bedini motors and also the MEG that I mentioned (which seems to have been really debunked good.). Mythbusters claimed to "debunk" the Bedini device but what they built looks nothing like what I've seen in any of the pictures, videos, or diagrams, so I'm not sure if that really affects the Bedini claim in any way. The trick here is that I'd like to find a device that has a reasonable chance of working, and I'm not sure if the Bedini devices are actually it, especially considering what I just heard from someone here that they aren't actually "over unity" at all, which would really make me wonder what their point is. Nor have I yet heard any good theory on the "effect".
I did, however, find this from a guy named Andrew Thorp who tried out something called an "Adams motor" that looks similar to a Bedini motor:
"there is an unusual effect that occurs when lead-acid batteries are subjected to high-voltage spikes, such as the motor coils produce. Their open-circuit voltage rises to a level higher than normal, but the net energy content still diminishes over time as normal. The very small motors that Dr. Adams originally built were capable of masking the normal voltage decrease of the supply batteries and making them appear to hold their energy level. Large automotive batteries will run a small motor for several weeks, and the mechanical contactor switch will fail within this time giving the impression that the motor is going to keep running forever without draining the batteries."
I think there's some relation between Bedini and Adams motors (isn't a Bedini a version of an Adams? I thought I saw something to that effect) so it is likely this critique may apply to the Bedini too. Especially considering you mentioned the "OU" being "in the batteries". If it's something to do with the batteries then the possibility of an illusion there must be considered. Also if there _is_ something "real" going on in the batteries what is the point of the "energizer" motor? Just to generate a particular voltage/current pattern? Then couldn't one use something else to generate that pattern as well? If so that might help to pin down what the heck is going on. It might also alleviate the need for a mechanical contactor, thereby allowing one to test for longer periods to perhaps give some idea as to whether or not Thorp's theory is correct (which, if true, would debunk the motor.).
What do you make of that? If it's just an illusion like that there's no point to bothering. It's stuff like this, plus the lack of rigorous scientific confirmations, that makes me skeptical.
There's nothing wrong in being skeptical about Bedini's claims. I'm skeptical along with many others but you need to realise that nobody can prove his claims simply because they are based on a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a conventional scientific manner. Even the generally accepted method of load testing batteries for the signs of energy gained does not convince experienced 'free energy' researchers that increased capacity in the battery is as a result of negative energy, simply becasue lowering the impedance of batteries by desulfating automatically increases battery capacity.
I'm sure you must know all this anyway Mike as an EE and yet you continue trying to make some sort of issue out of this. If people want to blindly follow Bedini like Lemmings then that's their choice. I mean if those people don't even understand basic electrics and electronics, there's little hope that your rantings will change their minds. To a large extent, you are 'preaching to the converted' who already understand your angle on things. How about relaxing a bit from the keyboard and letting your hair down by building your first spinning wheel energiser as a garden novelty if you like, as I suggested earlier. At least you can then say that you are at a beginners level with Bedini stuff.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 02, 2008, 07:52:36 AM
There's nothing wrong in being skeptical about Bedini's claims. I'm skeptical along with many others but you need to realise that nobody can prove his claims simply because they are based on a hypothesis that cannot be tested in a conventional scientific manner. Even the generally accepted method of load testing batteries for the signs of energy gained does not convince experienced 'free energy' researchers that increased capacity in the battery is as a result of negative energy, simply becasue lowering the impedance of batteries by desulfating automatically increases battery capacity.
And that's just it, it can't really be tested very well. So I don't see the point in bothering with that claim. Do you have _any_ idea of _any_ test that adheres to _general_ scientific principles, even if not a "conventional" one, that might work?
Quote from: Hoppy on October 02, 2008, 07:52:36 AM
I'm sure you must know all this anyway Mike as an EE and yet you continue trying to make some sort of issue out of this. If people want to blindly follow Bedini like Lemmings then that's their choice. I mean if those people don't even understand basic electrics and electronics, there's little hope that your rantings will change their minds. To a large extent, you are 'preaching to the converted' who already understand your angle on things. How about relaxing a bit from the keyboard and letting your hair down by building your first spinning wheel energiser as a garden novelty if you like, as I suggested earlier. At least you can then say that you are at a beginners level with Bedini stuff.
Hoppy
EE? I don't think so but I do know enough about physics to be skeptical of the working of what looks to be little more than just some magnets on a wheel with a coil. ("working" = "gives you 'free' energy".)
I suppose I could build it just for fun of boredom but being tight on cash and all, I'm not sure. Especially if there's really nothing amazing to expect.
Quote from: mike3 on October 02, 2008, 02:56:39 PM
And that's just it, it can't really be tested very well. So I don't see the point in bothering with that claim. Do you have _any_ idea of _any_ test that adheres to _general_ scientific principles, even if not a "conventional" one, that might work?
Afraid not Mike.
Hoppy
Quote from: Hoppy on October 02, 2008, 03:50:13 PM
Afraid not Mike.
Hoppy
So then I guess there's no bother. How else do you propose to ensure what you are looking at is actually result, and not just delusion? Scientific _methods_, by the way, should _not_ be confused with scientific _theory_.
Quote from: mike3 on October 03, 2008, 03:20:58 PM
So then I guess there's no bother. How else do you propose to ensure what you are looking at is actually result, and not just delusion? Scientific _methods_, by the way, should _not_ be confused with scientific _theory_.
more pathological skepticism...
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist. You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down."
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
"Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your evidence? I wouldn't soil my hands. And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome."
see http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 03, 2008, 03:39:25 PM
more pathological skepticism...
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for your results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist. You are obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your results would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided, and should be turned down."
The issue here is not a lack of mechanism, or a contradiction with theory, but ultimately a lack of *proof* that the device creates effects that are not attributable to misinterpreted mundane phenomena or experimental bias. For example, one critique I mentioned had to do with an observation of an artifact of lead-acid batteries that may fool an inexperienced experimenter into thinking that the device is generating energy when in fact it is not. One possible test that might eliminate this would be to try out a different type of battery. Does the effect persist or disappear? Look, if good repeatable proof could be found of an effect that is not just experimental bias or incompetence on the part of the experimenter then it doesn't matter if it contradicts orthodox theory -- so much worse for orthodox theory! Time to get a new paradigm. The problem is that lack of proof, however. Why bother replicating an experiment that is methodologically flawed?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on October 03, 2008, 03:39:25 PM
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
"Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your evidence? I wouldn't soil my hands. And besides, it would be a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question about the outcome."
see http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
Did you even read any of the critiques I mentioned? Where are they just blowing it off w/o making any examination of the claim?
For example:
http://www.PHACT.org/e/z/bearden.htm (Get it? "PHACT"? "FACT"??! HAHAHA!)
Here they discuss experimental procedures Naudin _did not follow_, experimental Methods designed to eliminate known sources of bias:
"Don't forget the possibility of capacitive coupling to the probe or its leads. Since the MEG output is pretty high voltage at 25-30 kHz and scopes generally have unbalanced inputs with high input Z, it wouldn't take too many pF of stray capacitance between the MEG output circuit and the probe leads to muck up the measurement.
If such be the case, the interference should lead the MEG output voltage in phase.
In order to check for this, you would need to move the output wire from the clamp as above while leaving it just outside the clamp and keeping the position of the output wiring relative to the probe leads unchanged- and then see if you get a zero reading.
Taking accurate electrical measurements is part of what I do for a living, and seeing the kind of sheer sloppiness Naudin habitually indulges is just plain irritating. Makes me want to go "Move over Rover and let a real tech take over"."
This is a well-known source of ERROR, and one _must_ eliminate it from one's experiment! If Naudin is not taking care with the experiments then the results of them are not trustworthy! How is that so difficult to understand??? It is experimental ERRORS like this that are the problem here. Bedini motors, MEGs, you name it, if they aren't doing good Experiments what's the point?
Another thing that is getting me miffed is that I'm getting contrary information here. One guy here seems to be admitting the device is not over-unity, which therefore would seem to be an admission it is not useful for anything and is not something revolutionary.