What is free energy?
Quote from: brian334 on August 14, 2010, 01:27:00 PM
What is free energy?
Over unity are a result of something that give mor energy than it can consume.
Free energy isn't neccesary over unity. It can be any form of energy we do not have to pay for.
Vidar
see http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1033.0
Vidar:
I agree totally. Free energy and OU are not the same. I get free energy from my earth batteries and joule thief circuits every day but they are not OU, at least not yet anyway. (I am always hopeful)
I am still surprised how many times these terms are confused both on here and other sites including Youtube. I have had many Youtube comments telling me that free energy is impossible even though they just saw it in my videos.
I once began a topic here on this very subject a few years ago and you would not believe the arguments and lack of any agreement on what these terms mean. I was very disappointed because if we are searching for OU and free energy, if we don't know what it is, or at least can't agree on what it is, how will we know when we find it? Who will agree that it is truly OU?
This is an interesting problem and probably one of the many reasons I am here.
Again, great post.
Bill
"FREE ENERGY" seems to be the only useful term.
When an "OVER UNITY DEVICE" is described (and for my argument it does not matter whether it works or not) there is always some mysterious energy source which is allegedly tapped. Often it is called "zero point energy" or "energy from the back EMF" or some other strange term.
So, an "OVER UNITY DEVICE" converts some mysterious "FREE ENERGY" into known energy (electric current or torque). Of course one can doubt, that this is possible, but this is not my point.
In other words, there is only conversion of one form of energy into an other form of energy. If the energy to start with exists in abundance, one may call it "FREE ENERGY". An "OVER UNITY DEVICE" converts a mysterious or not yet known form of "FREE ENERGY" into a known from of energy without input or with very little input of a known energy (in case it really works).
"OVER UNITY" is therefore a very confusing and even unnecessary term. "USING A YET UNKNOWN FREE ENERGY" would be better.
A windmill uses the "FREE ENERGY" commonly known as "WIND", and a submerged windmill http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/marine-power/atlantis-technologies.html uses the "FREE ENERY" known as "TIDES".
A Bedini Motor (if it really works as some claim) would use a unknown "FREE ENERGY" somehow related to the back electromagnetic force.
In the end it is just "terminology", but "OVER UNITY" is a very bad choice of words which hinders discussion because it implies the violation of widely accepted physical laws (e.g. conservation of energy).
Saying that an unknown energy has been found and that one tries to use this unknown energy with a new device, would be much less controversial.
Atomic energy was not known a hundred years ago and now there are power stations making use of it. I can imagine that there are many more "FREE ENERGIES" in the universe and that machines can be constructed to use it. And these not yet found "FREE ENERGIES" and these not yet built machines have nothing to do with "OVER UNITY".
Greetings, Conrad
Quote...
I once began a topic here on this very subject a few years ago and you would not believe the arguments and lack of any agreement on what these terms mean. I was very disappointed because if we are searching for OU and free energy, if we don't know what it is, or at least can't agree on what it is, how will we know when we find it? Who will agree that it is truly OU?
So, what was so wrong with at least some answers in that topic of yours, which you cannot agree with? Both synonims were defined a long, long time ago...
To make it short:
"Free Energy": ... any kind of energy you can use it without any (obvious) costs... (any conventional and even unconventional energy source, you can get it "to work for you", for free...)
"Over Unity": simple, any
isolated system, which outputs more energy, than it's
combined input's of energy are....
Needless to say, we still haven't observed any kind of OU so far... Funny, eh?
Who knows, maybe those silly old physical laws are still valid... LOL....
Quote from: spinn_MP on August 15, 2010, 06:12:54 AM
To make it short:
"Over Unity": simple, any isolated system, which outputs more energy, than it's combined input's of energy are.
My argument: The system is not isolated. An unknown form of energy is tapped. The "combined input" should not only list the "known energies" but also the "unknown energy" tapped.
So, by bringing the "unknown energy source" into the argument one can abandon the unfortunate "over unity".
Many inventors of "over unity machines" already refer to an "unknown energy". In fact, I have not read about any "over unity machine" where the inventor has not waffled about an unknown energy source which he uses. So, the term "over unity" does not apply anyway once the "unknown energy" is brought into the argument.
Just give up the "isolated system" term and you are free from "violation of widely accepted physical laws".
Of course, the "unknown energy" is a hard to sell, but at least one is not in the hot water of violating "energy conservation".
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on August 15, 2010, 06:27:02 AM
My argument: The system is not isolated. An unknown form of energy is tapped. The combined input only considers "known energies".
Quote
That doesn't change the thing a bit... We're observing the limited region. The input of a conventional, isolated system can handle even non-recognised energy sources... The point is, there's an additional INPUT source, even if it's currently non-identifed.
So, by bringing the "unknown energy source" into the argument one can abandon the unfortunate "over unity".
Many inventors of "over unity machines" already refer to an "unknown energy". In fact, I have not read about any "over unity machine" where the inventor has not waffled about an unknown energy source which he uses. So, the term "over unity" does not apply anyway once the "unknown energy" is brought into the argument.
Just give up the "closed system" term and you are free from "violation of widely accepted physical laws".
Of course, the "unknown energy" is a hard to sell, but at least one is not in the hot water of violating "energy conservation".
Greetings, Conrad
Dear Conrad, it's actually very simple to analyze any kind of a physical system with even unknown inputs...
As you may be aware, such a system (with undefined (additional) energy source) would easily be producing more energy out that "what would be put in conventional way into it"" .
It would be easy to construct different "self-sustained", "perpetual-motion" devices.
So, where are those devices?
I do not claim that "those devices" exist (alleged "over unity devices " probably do not work and "mysterious new energy sources" probably do not exist).
My argument:
If I wanted to "sell" a "over unity device" I would very much avoid the term "over unity". I would explain it by help of a "new energy source" which is converted into a electricity or torque.
(Of course I have no "over unity device" and I have not found a "new free energy source".)
I just want to say that "over unity" is a bad choice of words and that one can avoid the term "over unity" by bringing the term "new free energy" into play.
There are at least two examples in history for "new energy": electricity and atomic power, both were not consistently known 400 years ago. So, one can hope to find more "energies". But there are no credible examples for "over unity". So, I would go for a "new energy" and I would argue with "new energy" carefully avoiding to ever be caught saying "over unity".
It is just about which "words" should be used. It is not important, I have nothing to contribute technically. I just think that the term "over unity" causes confusion and hard feelings and that one should instead say "use of a new energy" or if you want "use of a new free energy".
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: brian334 on August 14, 2010, 01:27:00 PM
What is free energy?
"FREE ENERGY" is "ENERGY" which everybody is allowed to use without having to pay for it. And a second important feature is that this "ENERGY" is there in abundance.
For example solar energy (heat and all other "rays" from the sun hitting the surface of the earth):
So far it is free and as long as the sun works it is there in abundance. But I can imagine a political system that charges you money for its use. Nowadays you only have to buy the "Solar Device" (some sort of panel or heat trap) but in the future the fiscal authorities might levy a tax for every Kilowatt generated. So, solar energy is "still free" because it is futile to worry about the "end of the sun" (which also would be the end of the earth).
Energy in the wind and in the tides:
Because you need a lot of real estate on land or under water to install the "devices" (like windmills) it is hardly free. And if you want to install a windmill in your garden, in most building zones this is forbidden. So, this is not free energy for practical reasons.
Wood (the trees on this world):
In a world with not too many people wood could be "free energy" as long as more tress grow by themselves as are cut down to be burned.
Oil:
As long as we do not find oil on other planets and as long as there is no proof that oil is renewed automatically by some unknown mechanism in the earth, oil is not "free energy" because it will be used up some day.
Atomic energy:
Since it depends on rare materials (e.g. Uranium) it is not free. If we can find a new mechanism like "cold fusion", it could be free (but I fear that also for "cold fusion" one needs rare materials which will be hard to get).
My definition of free energy:
A source of energy which everybody is allowed to use for free and which is there in abundance.
Or a new way of converting a known energy source which is free and there in abundance (like the sun) in a very efficient way.
My argument again:
Like "over unity" the term "free energy" is used in a confusing and inconsistent way.
If I wanted to sell a wounder machine I would argue like this (but rest assured, I have no wounder machine):There is this new machine which converts this known abundant energy source (e.g. the rays from the sun) in a new very efficient way into electricity (like a photo voltaic panel), please buy it because I want to become rich.
In case of a "new energy source" I would try to explain the "new energy source" as profoundly as possible, hopefully with measurements and experiments that show the existence of this new energy source clearly.
So, my argument in a short:
In case you want recognition never use the terms "over unity" or "free energy".Good terms:
"efficient conversion of a known energy into an other known energy" , "use of a new energy source by converting the newly discovered energy into a known form of energy" and so on, you get my drift.
Greetings, Conrad
QuoteNeedless to say, we still haven't observed any kind of OU so far... Funny, eh?
That is not true. I have demonstrated conclusively in three different ways that overunity is real.
By the way, it is also not true that in order to produce energy there must be a hidden, hitherto unknown energy source to tap into. As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 15, 2010, 08:17:06 AM
As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.
This must be a "Gedankenexperiment" or a theoretical argument, or can you show a working machine doing just that?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: conradelektro on August 15, 2010, 08:32:21 AM
This must be a "Gedankenexperiment" or a theoretical argument, or can you show a working machine doing just that?
Greetings, Conrad
Working machine in what sense? I can show a working machine producing portions of excess energy. I can also show a working machine producing excess energy continuously but not a self-sustaining machine. Creating a self-sustaining machine is a very difficult engineering task but being unable to manufacture such machine today for obvious engineering reasons doesn't mean overunity isn't real and that such machine cannot be made in the future. On the contrary, I have shown conclusively that overunity is real, as I said, in three different ways.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 15, 2010, 08:49:12 AM
Working machine in what sense? ........ but not a self-sustaining machine. ....... being unable to manufacture such machine today
A working machine which I would accept as proof:
- a self sustaining machine
- a machine which can be manufactured today
- a machine that gives 1000 Watt more output than is put in (1000 Watt is a practical limit, so that it can be measured reliably without lengthy discussions; specially "caloric measurements" are difficult unless one gets a lot of heat, e.g. 1000 Watt and more)
Yes, there is no proof that "over unity is not possible".
But it is the burden of the "over unity inventor or advocate" to produce physical proof that his machine works. I do not have to proof that it does not work.
For some people, tiny amounts of may be measured "over unity energy" are conclusive and I have no problem with that as long as I am entitled to demand 1000 Watt before I become a believer.
Some have proven to themselves and others that they have seen god; I am a sinner who needs more that these people can offer.
I see an atomic power station with 100 Megawatt output, therefore I take "atomic energy" for granted. I see powerful steam engines, therefore I believe in the conversion of heat into torque. I drive a car, therefore I believe in oil.
I see no reliable and strong output (at least 1000 Watt) from an "over unity machine", therefore I remain a skeptic.
You may call me naive and not properly educated in physics, but all existing "non over unity" machines which I studied show reliable and strong output, and I could understand them sufficiently to convince me. Therefore I demand the same "performance" from an "over unity machine".
But my argument was not whether "over unity machines" work or not.
My argument is:
If you want people to listen do not use the terms "over unity" or "free energy". Try to explain your working machine without abandoning "energy conservation". If you have no working machine, then be prepared to meet a lot of unbelievers and even aggression.
I have seen a lot of claims in the "over unity field" where "over unity" was not really claimed (or needed not to be claimed). The "inventors" rather claimed the "exploitation of an unknown energy" or a "new way of converting a known energy". I know that some claim the extraction of energy from a field (like from gravity), but also this could be explained by referring to "unknown properties of the field" instead of using the unfortunate "over unity".
But fine, some like the term "over unity" and like the idea "of something from nothing". May be the whole universe is "something from nothing", but then show me a working machine with a strong output.
Most conversations fail because of the "terms" used. Therefore I advice the careful choice of terms before issuing strange claims without strong proof.
I want to give an example of a good choice of words when issuing a strange claim:
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://hydrino.org/
Again, I am not yet believing in the "Hydrino" or in Dr. Randell L. Mills. I just want to say, that Mills uses a much better way of presenting his (may be useless) ideas than most of the "over unity crowd" including Mr. Omnibus. The "Hydrino" advocates never say "over unity" or "free energy" and this is according to me a very strong reason why they get funding and room in the media.
Greetings, Conrad
This is what you would expect as proof but not what science would expect as proof. Different people have different expectations. What science expects, however, is what matters.
Notice, it is exactly the presenting of "(may be useless) ideas" that requires the Aesopian language and choosing words. Science requires open and truthful presentation and then the ideas do not appear strange. Who needs funding and media coverage for useless ideas even if there is someone out there who has managed to get such for his useless ideas?
Quote from: Omnibus on August 15, 2010, 08:17:06 AM
That is not true. I have demonstrated conclusively in three different ways that overunity is real.
By the way, it is also not true that in order to produce energy there must be a hidden, hitherto unknown energy source to tap into. As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.
No, in my opinion you haven't. You have demonstrated three versions that you believe are OU. OU does not exist - at least not in the way you have demonstrated them.
However, you can allways refresh our memory with drawings and explanations again. I bet there are users here that haven't seen your three examples of OU - maybe a link to these post are easier.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 15, 2010, 06:54:52 PM
No, in my opinion you haven't. You have demonstrated three versions that you believe are OU. OU does not exist - at least not in the way you have demonstrated them.
However, you can allways refresh our memory with drawings and explanations again. I bet there are users here that haven't seen your three examples of OU - maybe a link to these post are easier.
Vidar
Correct, that's your opinion. However, like I said, opinions don't count.
You're right. Not even yours...
Quote from: Low-Q on August 15, 2010, 07:49:20 PM
You're right. Not even yours...
Yours is an opinion. Mine is not. That's the difference.
Over Unity = A measure greater than ONE.
Any electrical device which is looped and self running is clear over unity.
However a device can still be OU if demonstrated that the power required to run the drive circuit is less than the output power and this is the hard part for many OU devices ie a COP>3 but where the precise energy is not easily measured.
An air con unit is Over Unity in heat mode. Usually COP>3 for 1kw of electric i/p in provides over 3Kw of heating o/p
So for these devices rather than argue they are OU just put them in the super power savings dept:)
Like many Bedini toys, joule thief, BEMF collection devices etc. Many of these ARE over unity the problem is accurately measuring the power despite the fact some circuits will run on 100mW but can provide 250mW into various loads, batteries, LED's etc.
The real issue here is not if OU exists to me i never question it not for over 10 years anyhow. Its as real as air or water so only the method is required to put to real use. IF someone make a joule thief and it powers 200 LEDS and lights their house or whatever they are using Radiant Energy for a real practical purpose. They don't have to justify to ANYONE other than themselves as they are the ones benefiting from it.
If on the other hand your experiment just sets out to prove if radiant energy exist, well don't waste your time its been used daily for 100 years by many people so its up to you to come up with practical solutions to make use of it like charging batteries, running 5HP motors on just 20 watts, running water pumps and pool pumps in RV mode using just 50 watts instead of 700 watts.
So stop trying to convince people its real the saboteurs are desperate to stop you using it as the last 5 years there has been a big wake up across the world. There are now hundreds of practical applications run your lights, use Imoteep HV to run CFL's, charge your garage batteries do whatever you want and when you get used to power savings suddenly looping is just around the corner:)
Hint: Looping and OU start with power savings.:)
Quote from: bolt on August 15, 2010, 10:35:40 PM
Over Unity = A measure greater than ONE.
Any electrical device which is looped and self running is clear over unity.
However a device can still be OU if demonstrated that the power required to run the drive circuit is less than the output power and this is the hard part for many OU devices ie a COP>3 but where the precise energy is not easily measured.
An air con unit is Over Unity in heat mode. Usually COP>3 for 1kw of electric i/p in provides over 3Kw of heating o/p
So for these devices rather than argue they are OU just put them in the super power savings dept:)
Like many Bedini toys, joule thief, BEMF collection devices etc. Many of these ARE over unity the problem is accurately measuring the power despite the fact some circuits will run on 100mW but can provide 250mW into various loads, batteries, LED's etc.
The real issue here is not if OU exists to me i never question it not for over 10 years anyhow. Its as real as air or water so only the method is required to put to real use. IF someone make a joule thief and it powers 200 LEDS and lights their house or whatever they are using Radiant Energy for a real practical purpose. They don't have to justify to ANYONE other than themselves as they are the ones benefiting from it.
If on the other hand your experiment just sets out to prove if radiant energy exist, well don't waste your time its been used daily for 100 years by many people so its up to you to come up with practical solutions to make use of it like charging batteries, running 5HP motors on just 20 watts, running water pumps and pool pumps in RV mode using just 50 watts instead of 700 watts.
So stop trying to convince people its real the saboteurs are desperate to stop you using it as the last 5 years there has been a big wake up across the world. There are now hundreds of practical applications run your lights, use Imoteep HV to run CFL's, charge your garage batteries do whatever you want and when you get used to power savings suddenly looping is just around the corner:)
Hint: Looping and OU start with power savings.:)
Quote from: Omnibus on August 15, 2010, 08:17:06 AM
That is not true. I have demonstrated conclusively in three different ways that overunity is real.
By the way, it is also not true that in order to produce energy there must be a hidden, hitherto unknown energy source to tap into. As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.
I read this statement of yours everywhere Ominibus. You have 3 arguments? is it? that existing Thermodynamic Laws allow for OU? :o Can I see your paper on this and has it been presented to a peer reviewed journal for publication? I would have thought that many people would be interested in this. ::)
And if you know the appropriate construction of such an OU machine could you please indulge us all on Open Source and let us see this design? Or are you here referring to those experiments that others have done - where you seem to reserve some exclusive right to arbitrate on their effectiveness?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 02:05:41 AM
I read this statement of yours everywhere Ominibus. You have 3 arguments? is it? that existing Thermodynamic Laws allow for OU? :o Can I see your paper on this and has it been presented to a peer reviewed journal for publication? I would have thought that many people would be interested in this. ::)
And if you know the appropriate construction of such an OU machine could you please indulge us all on Open Source and let us see this design? Or are you here referring to those experiments that others have done - where you seem to reserve some exclusive right to arbitrate on their effectiveness?
You can read about the most recent proof in the Steorn thread here in this forum. You can see a lot of experimental evidence posted there. Five experimental papers came out of all this study but I will postpone submitting them for publication because I'm still not happy with the accuracy especially regarding the current-voltage phase shift which is crucial. More work has to be done on this and I'm not even certain at this point that any level of sophistication of the equipment (even the $100k Tektronix scopes, $20k probes and so on) will satisfy the critics (I mean the honest critics). Unfortunately, these concerns apply to all such studies including the studies you have undertaken. So we will have to see what can be done about that.
The above notwithstanding, there is one study I posted which categorically proves that OU is inherent in the electrical phenomena under certain circumstances. You can see from the theoretical data posted there (don't have the link right now) that while in absence of voltage offset all is well and good and the energy balance is as expected. When voltage offset is non-zero, however, an inherent violation of CoE becomes clearly seen. The violation of CoE in such a case is due to the saving from the input. In other words, for a certain negative voltage offset the input energy can become practically zero (all of it being returned back to the source) for a non-zero output. For a more negative voltage offset the energy-time slope becomes even negative. When the voltage offset is positive one observes severe underunity which is also a violation of CoE, although of no practical interest. The higher the positive voltage offset the greater the underunity.
Mind you, all this comes about purely theoretically, based on the classical understanding of electricity. I am in the process of discussing this hitherto unknown inherent possibility to violate CoE with colleagues and to this day no one has been able to come up with anything that can explain it away.
Now, I wrote more on the CoE violation concerning electrical systems because this would be of greatest interest to you, however, I have an earlier proof, based on a magnetic propulsor, which definitively shows production of excess energy, that is, violation of CoE.
Also, there's another, third analysis which pertains to the co-called 'cold fusion' electrochemical cell where I demonstrate that excess energy (violation of CoE) is inherent in an un-divided cell where electrolysis of water takes place simultaneously with the process reverse to it. This is the main reason why there has been a lot of excess energy experimental confirmations of Fleischmann and Pons' 'cold fusion' claim, including studies such as those done by Randell Mills. The nuclear effects in this 'cold fusion' are in addition to this purely electrochemical effect which has obviously been overlooked thus far.
You can see there in these studies how crucial the correct measurement of the current-voltage phase shift is. Inaccuracies in the measurement of voltage on the order of the corridor of errors would lead to tens of percent of inaccuracy in the energy (power) balance. However, this same level of inaccuracy with regard to the current-voltage phase shift may lead to thousands of percent (and even greater) inaccuracy in the energy (power) balance. Conversely, such inaccuracies in measuring the current-voltage phase shift may falsely show absence of OU where there actually is a very pronounced OU. This problem of measuring accurately the phase shift is especially important in the studies of transformers and all kinds of coils with a core (such as toroid coils, for instance) where even in absence of voltage offset the core may invoke a current-voltage phase shift which differs from the current-voltage offset corresponding to the equivalent active resistances, capacitances and inductances in the studied circuit. At that, a very slight such discrepancy is needed to be induced by the core to cause enormous OU effects. That's why the requirements for advanced apparatus to study this effect are so stringent.
Let me mention also this. Increasing of points of partition (digitization) from, say, several thousand to one hundred thousand let alone a million, doesn't by any means contribute to the increase of the accuracy. On the contrary, the increase of the number of points increases the rounding errors, the floating point errors and so on. Therefore, even the most accurately measured instantaneous values of current and voltage will inevitably be prone to data processing errors and that aspect has to be studied very carefully as well.
As a matter of fact, because of all these way too many sources of errors, it is highly unusual and probably there's hardly any academic who would undertake the type of power measurements we are talking about. Nevertheless, they are important to be done, they are probably not as impossible as they now seem to be, and we have to find ways to come up with convincing experimental results.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 16, 2010, 03:13:03 AM
Let me mention also this. Increasing of points of partition (digitization) from, say, several thousand to one hundred thousand let alone a million, doesn't by any means contribute to the increase of the accuracy. On the contrary, the increase of the number of points increases the rounding errors, the floating point errors and so on. Therefore, even the most accurately measured instantaneous values of current and voltage will inevitably be prone to data processing errors and that aspect has to be studied very carefully as well.
As a matter of fact, because of all these way too many sources of errors, it is highly unusual and probably there's hardly any academic who would undertake the type of power measurements we are talking about. Nevertheless, they are important to be done, they are probably not as impossible as they now seem to be, and we have to find ways to come up with convincing experimental results.
This is nonsense - with respect. I'll answer your previous post in due course - but this is absolute nonsense. If we can get to the moon with accurate power analysis and we can send probes to mars and to the outer reaches of our solar system - and if we can get messaging from millions of miles - with subtle - barely detectable power measurements - ALL BASED ON CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT - then WHY IS IT that our instruments become DEFUNCT and INSUFFICIENT when it gets to the analsys of a mere 35 watts from a switching cycle at a frequency PROVEN to be sufficient at the resonances we're working with. I can still - but barely - buy into the argument that at milliwatts we're dealing with problems. At least at this level I acknowledge that the power is hardly sufficient for purposes of generating heat.
And we've only proved heat - but now, fortunately, at more significant levels of wattages. But DON'T give me this crap that somehow measurements become arbitrary when the manufacturers of those same instruments guarantee them. Now you're arguing with really big names.
And I have been ASSURED by academics - WIDE RANGING AND WITH NO EXCEPTIONS - that even the Fluke we used was sufficient for measuring what we measured. They have some margin for error. But the instruments themselves are GUARANTEEED to give a certain level of accuracy.
It worries me Omnibus - that you PERSIST in throwing out these nonsense arguments. It has echoes of Harvey and Glen - and for that matter TK - written all over it.
EDITED
SORRY THIS IS A DUPLICATE POSTING AND I CAN'T DELETE IT.
This is nonsense - with respect. I'll answer your previous post in due course - but this is absolute nonsense. If we can get to the moon with accurate power analysis and we can send probes to mars and to the outer reaches of our solar system - and if we can get messaging from millions of miles - with subtle - barely detectable power measurements - ALL BASED ON CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT - then WHY IS IT that our instruments become DEFUNCT and INSUFFICIENT when it gets to the analsys of a mere 35 watts from a switching cycle at a frequency PROVEN to be sufficient at the resonances we're working with. I can still - but barely - buy into the argument that at milliwatts we're dealing with problems. At least at this level I acknowledge that the power is hardly sufficient for purposes of generating heat. And we've only proved heat - but now, fortunately, at more significant levels of wattages. But DON'T give me this crap that somehow measurements become arbitrary when the manufacturers of those same instruments guarantee them. Now you're arguing with really big names.
And I have been ASSURED by academics - WIDE RANGING AND WITH NO EXCEPTIONS - that even the Fluke we used was sufficient for measuring what we measured. They have some margin for error. But the instruments themselves are GUARANTEEED to give a certain level of accuracy.
It worries me Omnibus - that you PERSIST in throwing out these nonsense arguments. It has echoes of Harvey and Glen - and for that matter TK - written all over it.
Sorry I've lost the original quote. I'll try and get it back.
It's true, initially it is a common thing to hear that for these measurements even Fluke is enough. I've heard it too. However, go discuss the concrete data with these same people and you'll hear a completely different attitude. And, like I said, show me anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature measurements of power balance of, say, transformers, as thorough as we're trying to do. Not by measuring rms but the thorough ones we're doing (on signals more complex than just sine waves).
I'm telling you, had I not found the theoretical discrepancy, inherent in the electrical phenomena, I would have probably given up on the experiments for the time being. No one professionally involved in electrical measurements would want to touch them with a ten foot pole. Out of politeness, maybe. Not as a serious undertaking. This isn't some whimsical thing that I'm writing about here. I've approached some very serious parties, some of them even friends of mine, and that turned out to be a common trait in that community. We should face this fact and not hide our heads in the sand but should try to find ways to overcome it.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 16, 2010, 04:20:37 AM
It's true, initially it is a common thing to hear that for these measurements even Fluke is enough. I've heard it too. However, go discuss the concrete data with these same people and you'll hear a completely different attitude. And, like I said, show me anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature measurements of power balance of, say, transformers, as thorough as we're trying to do. Not by measuring rms but the thorough ones we're doing (on signals more complex than just sine waves).
I'm telling you, had I not found the theoretical discrepancy, inherent in the electrical phenomena, I would have probably given up on the experiments for the time being. No one professionally involved in electrical measurements would want to touch them with a ten foot pole. Out of politeness, maybe. Not as a serious undertaking. This isn't some whimsical thing that I'm writing here. I've approached some very serious parties, some of them even friends of mine, and that turned out to be a common trait in that community. We should face this fact and not hide our heads in the sand but should try to find ways to overcome it.
Then WHY IS IT that our own academics are using conventional instruments? Clearly there are those who DO INDEED rely on classical measurments using classically acceptable measuring instruments. I acknowledge that the calculation of a resonating circuit is very complex. But when wattage is related to heat dissipated it is ABSOLUTELY UNARGUABLE.
And I might add, when wattage delivered is based on measurements across a non-inductive calibrated shunt it is ALSO unarguable. Go ask. Even the most antagonistic disclaimers admit this. ACROSS THE BOARD.
Notice also this. I'm am doing it completely open source. I'm not filing for patents as you do and I, unlike you, would be perfectly happy if someone else tries to reproduce what I'm doing even if he or she beats me to it. I have absolutely no financial stakes in this research and all I'm interested in is the truth about these phenomena. Nevertheless, like I said, no one is willing (aside from being polite and so on) to undertake serious efforts and partake in the getting to the bottom of it. That's the sad truth.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 16, 2010, 04:27:02 AM
Notice also this. I'm am doing it completely open source. I'm not filing for patents as you do and I, unlike you, would be perfectly happy if someone else tries to reproduce what I'm doing even if he or she beats me to it. I have absolutely no financial stakes in this research and all I'm interested in is the truth about these phenomena. Nevertheless, like I said, no one is willing (aside from being polite and so on) to undertake serious efforts and partake in the getting to the bottom of it. That's the sad truth.
WHAT PATENTS?????? ARE YOU NOW TELLING ME THAT I HAVE EXTANT PATENTS. I went to some considerable trouble to ensure that this technology CAN NEVER BE PATENTED. Do you read what I write Omnibus? Or do you just speculate on what I've written?
And what do you make of our own academics testing our appliance technology? Are you accusing them of simply being POLITE? HOW EXCESSIVELY PRESUMPTUOUS AND HOW EXCESSIVELY RUDE TO ATTRIBUTE A MOTIVE TO ANYONE WITHOUT FIRST ASCERTAINING THE FACTS.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 04:24:18 AM
Then WHY IS IT that our own academics are using conventional instruments? Clearly there are those who DO INDEED rely on classical measurments using classically acceptable measuring instruments. I acknowledge that the calculation of a resonating circuit is very complex. But when wattage is related to heat dissipated it is ABSOLUTELY UNARGUABLE.
And I might add, when wattage delivered is based on measurements across a non-inductive calibrated shunt it is ALSO unarguable. Go ask. Even the most antagonistic disclaimers admit this. ACROSS THE BOARD.
These academics are using conventional instrumentation but not for the purpose we're doing it. Case in point. During the studies this summer I found out that a Hall effect based current probe is crucial for the measurements. And, guess what, I went personally to some of the most prestigious universities not only in the US asking colleagues there if I could borrow one. Lo and behold, however, I was told that current measurements are highly uncommon in these electrical departments in those prestigious universities and there was only one colleague who turned out has a current probe but it was a high amp current probe, unsuitable for these studies.
Then, speaking of the flights to the Moon and so on. These are engineering pursuits, mostly based on empirical findings. Furthermore, the success isn't as clear cut as the propaganda puts it. You may recall the Patriot missile problems during the 'desert storm' I believe it was. Raytheon were heavily criticized for misrepresenting the actual successful hits. And that's. like I said, engineering. Here we're talking about some very precise let alone controversial measurements which aren't even the subject of study by academics.
As far as heat released, I'm of the opinion that these measurements we're talking about should resolve the problem purely electrically, avoiding calorimetry. Calorimetry at these power levels is a daunting pursuit, not to say that if the electrical measurements are accurate calorimetry is completely unnecessary.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 04:31:41 AM
WHAT PATENTS?????? ARE YOU NOW TELLING ME THAT I HAVE EXTANT PATENTS. I went to some considerable trouble to ensure that this technology CAN NEVER BE PATENTED. Do you read what I write Omnibus? Or do you just speculate on what I've written?
And what do you make of our own academics testing our appliance technology? Are you accusing them of simply being POLITE? HOW EXCESSIVELY PRESUMPTUOUS AND HOW EXCESSIVELY RUDE TO ATTRIBUTE A MOTIVE TO ANYONE WITHOUT FIRST ASCERTAINING THE FACTS.
Sorry about that. You were saying that there are some people somewhere who were following what you do and you didn't want to discuss the experiments openly. Somehow I thought you were concerned about patents but obviously I've misunderstood you. Again, sorry about that. The fact of the matter, however, is that you stated you will not divulge openly some aspects of the research until you finish it while I was posting data as I was obtaining it absolutely openly, without hiding anything whatsoever.
As for the colleagues, yes, I think they have mostly been polite. I told you that earlier. It's an undeniable fact that your studies were refused publication, isn't it? I also told you I think it was wrong that they refused to publish your results because it is the publishing of the results that actually subjects them to peer review. However, that's the sorry state of the affairs with the academic journals these days.
I give up Omnibus. I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE THE SUBJECT OF INTEREST AT A UNIVERSITY WHERE WE'RE DOING EXPERIMENTS.
And your example of 'missile hits' is irrelevant - with respect. And to dismiss calorimetric measurements flies in the face of acceptable scientific practice. You're on your own here. I am not sure WHY you need to so urgently dismiss the evidence that we've gleaned over the years. But I'm satisfied that your attitude is WHY this technology is only progressed against this 'twittering' barrage of irrelevancies. Your attitude is defeatist and your argument based on spurious reasoning. Perhaps you should rally interest instead of continually casting doubts in the face of this hard won evidence. All measurements that we have done are based on highly acknowledged and respectable measurement protocols. It would serve the general OU drive MUCH BETTER if you acknowledged this. And it concerns me that you don't.
One thing I KNOW. If there had not been these and similar detractions throughout these Open Source Forums - then the news of this technology would be more widespread. It is surprisingly NOT well known. Which, frankly, is why I am now looking to other means of 'spreading the word' and which is why I'm so thankful that we've got academics on board.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 04:58:25 AM
I give up Omnibus. I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THESE EXPERIMENTS ARE THE SUBJECT OF INTEREST AT A UNIVERSITY WHERE WE'RE DOING EXPERIMENTS.
And your example of 'missile hits' is irrelevant - with respect. And to dismiss calorimetric measurements flies in the face of acceptable scientific practice. You're on your own here. I am not sure WHY you need to so urgently dismiss the evidence that we've gleaned over the years. But I'm satisfied that your attitude is WHY this technology is only progressed against this 'twittering' barrage of irrelevancies. Your attitude is defeatist and your argument based on spurious reasoning. Perhaps you should rally interest instead of continually casting doubts in the face of this hard won evidence. All measurements that we have done are based on highly acknowledged and respectable measurement protocols. It would serve the general OU drive MUCH BETTER if you acknowledged this. And it concerns me that you don't.
One thing I KNOW. If there had not been these and similar detractions throughout these Open Source Forums - then the news of this technology would be more widespread. It is surprisingly NOT well known. Which, frankly, is why I am now looking to other means of 'spreading the word' and which is why I'm so thankful that we've got academics on board.
I'm afraid the above is just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't get confirmation for the viability of your results from the professors you mentioned and I don't expect to get any more positive reference even if you continue to give me names to talk to. Of course, as I've already explained, that isn't unexpected for me, that isn't unusual, provided the very complex subject of study. On the other hand, we should not live with illusions imagining that things are different from what they really are.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 16, 2010, 05:05:49 AM
I'm afraid the above is just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't get confirmation for the viability of your results from the professors you mentioned and I don't expect to get any more positive reference even if you continue to give me names to talk to. Of course, as I've already explained, that isn't unexpected for me, that isn't unusual, provided the very complex subject of study. On the other hand, we should not live with illusions imagining that things are different from what they really are.
I do not expect to get any confirmation from UCT. Fortunately it is NOT THE ONLY UNIVERSITY in the Western Cape. There are those campuses that still consider that science should be based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. When this is the foundation of study then we can still have hope for science.
Added. I need to SPELL THIS OUT. Clearly. We have been invited to use the laboratories of a local univeristy and have access to the extensive measuring equipment in those laboratories and to use the applied skills of some highly repectable engineers to design certain aspects of the required switching - so that we can have the appliance tested THOROUGHLY so that if there is any evident advantage in the technology that this can be made known. Is that any clearer?
I might add that Glen Lettenmaier wrote to those academics to advise them that I was plagiarising his technolgy. Go figger. ::) Fortunately they did their own thorough investigation of the facts and dismissed his advise - OUT OF HAND. So between your type of negativity and Glen and Harvey's type of suppression - I've had my work cut out. But I'm fast losing patience with these attitudes and these practices. I assure you.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 05:09:28 AM
I do not expect to get any confirmation from UCT. Fortunately it is NOT THE ONLY UNIVERSITY in the Western Cape. There are those campuses that still consider that science should be based on EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. When this is the foundation of study then we still have hope for science.
Like I said, all power to you. I really wish some solid proof comes out of those studies. It's admirable you persist in this and it's great you've found academics who are willing to look into it. Good luck and hope to hear more details about the studies as they progress. Secrecy is a dead end.
By the way, there are in this forums some very fine researchers, who also won't spare healthy criticism when it's due, such as @Omega_0, @gyulasun, @telsaalset, @broli, @poynt99, to name a few. I would strongly recommend to have your results posted here promptly so that they can be creatively discussed. This will help to speed up the research and avoid sooner the hidden obstacles which every study is accompanied by.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 16, 2010, 05:35:22 AM
By the way, there are in this forums some very fine researchers, who also won't spare healthy criticism when it's due, such as @Omega_0, @gyulasun, @telsaalset, @broli, @poynt99, to name a few. I would strongly recommend to have your results posted here promptly so that they can be creatively discussed. This will help to speed up the research and avoid sooner the hidden obstacles which every study is accompanied by.
If they, like you, consider these submissions 'healthy' then you all have a strange 'take' on good health. While I welcome comment - I assure you I will NEVER AGAIN depend on the 'considerations' or ruling or opinion of any Open Source member unless he disclose his accreditations together with his name - is the first point. And then - they, like you Omnibus, will need to defer to the opinion of those who are directly involved - like it or not. And quite frankly - of your list I only know Poynty. I'm absolutely inclined to respect his opinion. As I understand it he considers that we have all made gross measurement errors. Unfortunately he has not been able to point out where. And nor do I think he's that interested to work on the subject. And his opinion in this matter is irrelevant until he engages in a close analaysis as to WHERE is that 'fault'. Otherwise he is simply - like you - detracting from a desirable technology.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 06:14:23 AM
If they, like you, consider these submissions 'healthy' then you all have a strange 'take' on good health. While I welcome comment - I assure you I will NEVER AGAIN depend on the 'considerations' or ruling or opinion of any Open Source member unless he disclose his accreditations together with his name - is the first point. And then - they, like you Omnibus, will need to defer to the opinion of those who are directly involved - like it or not. And quite frankly - of your list I only know Poynty. I'm absolutely inclined to respect his opinion. As I understand it he considers that we have all made gross measurement errors. Unfortunately he has not been able to point out where. And nor do I think he's that interested to work on the subject. And his opinion in this matter is irrelevant until he engages in a close analaysis as to WHERE is that 'fault'. Otherwise he is simply - like you - detracting from a desirable technology.
I don't know these people either. Don't know them personally neither do I know what their credentials are. I'm only judging based on what they say here in the forum and most of it has been very competent and useful. I, unlike you, judge by the actual deeds and arguments presented and not by some pretentious credentials which soon prove to be phony in many cases. I have encountered such pseudo experts more than once. You yourself, as far as I understand, have been suffering from such pseudo scientific self-proclaimed credentialism, as it were. My experience is that there is nothing better than open source discussion as long as you can recognize who the zealous activist is and who is the honest critic. I'm not even mentioning the incompetent.
Rosemary, i forgot to comment on the following and it's important to do soL
QuoteOne thing I KNOW. If there had not been these and similar detractions throughout these Open Source Forums - then the news of this technology would be more widespread.
It is absolutely not true that these forums have anything to do with these kinds of research (technology) not being widely spread. You should somehow understand that these forums have practically no impact on the world of science of technology, they are not much more than a friendly chat (friendly bickering sometimes) and make no dent in the understanding of the general public. Therefore, it is imperative to have your stuff published in the peer-reviewed literature where it will begin to acquire its real scientific life in a community which is instrumental not only in spreading the word but also controlling the research resources which nobody can compete with. That's why enjoy the forums, don't blame them for anything and don't expect them to break the solid fence surrounding the overunity research. Try to get the most of the discussions which will help you to sharpen the arguments when you decide to wage the battle where it really belongs -- in the academy.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 16, 2010, 02:05:41 AM
I read this statement of yours everywhere Ominibus. You have 3 arguments? is it? that existing Thermodynamic Laws allow for OU? :o Can I see your paper on this and has it been presented to a peer reviewed journal for publication? I would have thought that many people would be interested in this. ::)
And if you know the appropriate construction of such an OU machine could you please indulge us all on Open Source and let us see this design? Or are you here referring to those experiments that others have done - where you seem to reserve some exclusive right to arbitrate on their effectiveness?
Omnibus have three arguments. None of them are proof of OU. A few members here have tried to explain why it isn't OU, but it doesn't help.
Omnibus, this is no longer an opinion, but straight facts. No offense.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 08:30:19 AM
Omnibus have three arguments. None of them are proof of OU. A few members here have tried to explain why it isn't OU, but it doesn't help.
Omnibus, this is no longer an opinion, but straight facts. No offense.
Vidar
The above is obviously an opinion and you should restrain from further pushing it in this way trying to make it look as truth. You may repeat it 100 times but it will still remain an opinion.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:00:03 AM
The above is obviously an opinion and you should restrain from further pushing it in this way trying to make it look as truth. You may repeat it 100 times but it will still remain an opinion.
Not the truth but a mere opinion? I saw you yourself claim that you weren't entirely satisfied with the argument and therefore have NOT published in a peer reviewed journal as you advise everyone else to do. Notwithstanding which, you are satisfied enough to refer me and all readers to the existence of that argument as you stated 'you've proved it conclusively' that it's allowed - or words to that effect. I'm too bored to find the actual quote.
Omnibus I strongly recommend that you desist from advising others where you, yourself, cannot comply. Over unity is the measure of energy delivered from a supply or many supply sources that is less than the energy measured to be dissipated as a result of that energy transfer. It defies classical prediction. If you can prove that it's actually REQUIRED in terms of classical prediction - then I suspect there will be many interested readers.
Rosemary
Rosemary,
QuoteOver unity is the measure of energy delivered from a supply or many supply sources that is less than the energy measured to be dissipated as a result of that energy transfer.
but this means that part of the dissipated energy has come from no pre-existing energy supply, right? I've proved in three different ways that there are conditions where it does happen. In the case of electrical circuits which is of most interest to you, you may read about it in the Steorn thread, I told you that already.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:36:43 AM
Rosemary,
but this means that part of the dissipated energy has come from no pre-existing energy supply, right? I've proved in three different ways that there are conditions where it does happen. In the case of electrical circuits which is of most interest to you, you may read about it in the Steorn thread, I told you that already.
Publish it in a peer reviewed journal and I'll be happy to read your proof. Until then I simply cannot buy into the concept of Over Unity resulting from No other energy source than the supply. It makes no sense. It never will.
Sorry - duplicate posting. I keep doing this.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 10:41:58 AM
Publish it in a peer reviewed journal and I'll be happy to read your proof. Until then I simply cannot buy into the concept of Over Unity resulting from No other energy supply source than the supply. It makes no sense. It never will.
But you said it even yourself that it can. It is implied in your previous posting in the excerpt I cited.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:46:18 AM
But you said it even yourself that it can. It is implied in your previous posting in the excerpt I cited.
I have NEVER stated that OU is the result a single supply source. I have only claimed that OU is the result of the latent energy in the resistor that is somehow potentialised by the current that first flowed through it. In other words the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source. Strictly speaking my predictions conform to classical requirements more stringently than is even required by you electrical and chemical engineers. It just does not conform to equivalence principles that assumes the only energy available is from the supply.
Overunity, if you really mean it, implies that either part or the entire amount of the produced energy has come from no pre-existing energy source. I said energy source but it doesn't mean the energy has come out of nothing because it definitely has come out of other physical components (other than energy). Say, the produced energy source may have come out due to the spontaneous displacement under the action of a force. Force isn't energy and yet when there are conditions for spontaneous displacement what is produced is work (energy).
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 10:50:31 AM
I have NEVER stated that OU is the result a single supply source. I have only claimed that OU is the result of the latent energy in the resistor that is somehow potentialised by the current that first flowed through it. In other words the resistor itself becomes an energy supply source. Strictly speaking my predictions conform to classical requirements more stringently than is even required by you electrical and chemical engineers.
If that's the case then it isn't OU and presents no interest. That would be trivial.
Let alone that there is no such thing as latent energy in the resistor.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:51:05 AM
Overunity, if you really mean it, implies that either part or the entire amount of the produced energy has come from no pre-existing energy source. I said energy source but it doesn't mean the energy has come out of nothing because it definitely has come out of other physical components (other than energy).
Say, the produced energy source may have come out due to the spontaneous displacement under the action of a force. Force isn't energy and yet when there are conditions for spontaneous displacement what is produced is work (energy).
You're losing me Omnibus. Over Unity relies on the measure of more energy being dissipated at a circuit than is delivered by an energy supply source. There is no known 'FORCE OF DISPLACEMENT' that I have ever learned about. The forces relate to electromagnetic forces, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear force. These are known and accepted by mainstream. What is not yet acknowledged or understood is the force from Dark matter resulting in Dark energy. That is yet to be incorporated. I know of no other forces. Not anywhere.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:00:03 AM
The above is obviously an opinion and you should restrain from further pushing it in this way trying to make it look as truth. You may repeat it 100 times but it will still remain an opinion.
No, it's not an opinion. It's the truth as long you haven't been able to prove anything yet. When it comes to you, I know it doesn't help to repeat this 100 times, because you have already decided that you're right, and are too scared to rethink your "prove of over unity". I know you are wrong, and that is good enough for me, but I find it very refreshing to argue with you once in a while ;D
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
If that's the case then it isn't OU and presents no interest. That would be trivial.
Let alone that there is no such thing as latent energy in the resistor.
If there was no latent energy in the resistor then E would NOT equal MC^2. Are you proposing the Mass does not have energy? That would be a really exotic branch of physics to develop.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 10:58:33 AM
You're losing me Omnibus. Over Unity relies on the measure of more energy being dissipated at a circuit than is delivered by an energy supply source. There is no known 'FORCE OF DISPLACEMENT' that I have ever learned about. The forces relate to electromagnetic forces, gravity and the strong and weak nuclear force. These are known and accepted by mainstream. What is not yet acknowledged or understood is the force from Dark matter resulting in Dark energy. That is yet to be incorporated. I know of no other forces. Not anywhere.
So you don't know that displacement under the action of a force is work, correct?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 11:00:51 AM
If there was no latent energy in the resistor then E would NOT equal MC^2. Are you proposing the Mass does not have energy? That would be a really exotic branch of physics to develop.
So, you think the resistor is losing mass when current passes through it, is that it?
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 10:58:53 AM
No, it's not an opinion. It's the truth as long you haven't been able to prove anything yet. When it comes to you, I know it doesn't help to repeat this 100 times, because you have already decided that you're right, and are too scared to rethink your "prove of over unity". I know you are wrong, and that is good enough for me, but I find it very refreshing to argue with you once in a while ;D
Vidar
Don't repeat 100 times your opinion, it will not become truth that way.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:05:20 AM
So, you think the resistor is losing mass when current passes through it, is that it?
NO, not at all. I know the resistor is NOT losing mass. I'm reasonably satisfied that in the standard transfer of electric energy there is little - if any - change to the atomic structure of the resistor. The only thing that changes is the integrity of its bound condition. For that matter, nor do I think that there's changes to the mass from the supply - be it a motorised generator or a chemical cell. The difference in the cell is only ever in the re-arrangement of the molecular structures in that cell which vary the distribution of charge and the location of those molecules. But the mass is entirely conserved - give or take some minor evaporation of some of the liquid - or the escape of some of those gases.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 11:13:51 AM
NO, not at all. I know the resistor is NOT losing mass. I'm reasonably satisfied that in the standard transfer of electric energy there is little - if any - change to the atomic structure of the resistor. The only thing that changes is the integrity of its bound condition. For that matter, nor do I think that there's changes to the mass from the supply - be it a motorised generator or a chemical cell. The difference in the cell is only ever in the re-arrangement of the molecular structures in that cell which vary the distribution of charge and the location of those molecules. But the mass is entirely conserved - give or take some minor evaporation of some of the liquid - or the escape of some of those gases.
So, mass is conserved but chemical bonding changes (re-arrangement of the molecular structures). In other words you treat the resistor as some kind of fuel. Take coil, for instance. When a limp of coil burns mass is conserved but various changes occur with the bonding. That's pretty trivial. This isn't overunity.
Let alone, no such re-arrangement takes place whatsoever. That's unfounded to no end.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:20:50 AM
So, mass is conserved but chemical bonding changes (re-arrangement of the molecular structures). In other words you treat the resistor as some kind of fuel. Take coil, for instance. When a limp of coil burns mass is conserved but various changes occur with the bonding. That's pretty trivial. This isn't overunity.
Let alone, no such re-arrangement takes place whatsoever. That's unfounded to no end.
This is a bit difficult to follow. Do you mean a 'lump of coal' or do you mean a lint of cotton from a bobbin coil? But either way. Yes. I don't have to speculate on this. I know. There is absolutely NO change to the atomic structure of that lump of coal or that lint of cotton in the event that they burn. Their atoms remain intact. Even when we are exposed to a nuclear explosion atoms remain in tact. Unless only that the applied force is that strong that it can bring about fusion within the atoms themselves. That would need to be particularly hot and that level of heat is only assumed to be naturally available in our suns.
The atoms themselves do NOT change. In an electromagnetic interaction there is NO predicted change to any of the atoms. In a chemical interaction there can be a redistribution of charge - related to the valence electrons in the outer energy levels of those atoms. But that's it. The atom and it's nucleus will remain pretty much in tact in the face of, and notwithstanding some considerable disruption to their bound state and to their locality. That's mainstream science. I'm proposing nothing new here.
Rosemary, you are totally confused. Learn what fusion and what fission is first before getting into discussion about that. Even before learning about fusion and fission, learn what atomic structure is as opposed to molecular structure. Read even the earlier chapters of a physics book to find out what work is and how it is related to force and so on and so forth. I'm afraid that participant who told you to first acquaint yourself with some basic stuff was right. I didn't know at the time the situation was that bad so I didn't side with him. There's no need to fill a forum like this with your confusion, self-righteous at that. Sorry for the strong words but there's a point when you have to hear them.
It's absolutely hilarious that one should preach about dark matter and claim big discoveries when he or she is obviously unfamiliar with the basic principles of physics and chemistry. One who cares about these disciplines and their advances cannot be polite about pointing this out.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:38:27 AM
Rosemary, you are totally confused. Learn what fusion and what fission is first before getting into discussion about that. Even before learning about fusion and fission, learn what atomic structure is as opposed to molecular structure. Read even the earlier chapters of a physics book to find out out what work is and how it is related to force and so on and so forth. I'm afraid that participant who told you to first acquaint yourself with some basic stuff was right. I didn't know at the time the situation was that bad so I didn't side with him. There's no need to fill a forum like this with your confusion, self-righteous at that. Sorry for the strong words but there's a point when you have to hear them.
LOL Omnibus. You again ignore what I've written and then post a lot of irrelevancis that claim AGAIN that I know not whereof I speak. I submit - with respect - that it is you who need to learn from your books. When you can show me a lump of coal that has any variation to the atoms after burning - then indeed I will be happy to go and revisit what little I know about physics. There may be the evaporation of some of the gases trapped in that coal. But what you are left with after combustion is EXACTLY the same number of atoms and molecules in that coal that were there to begin with. Some of the carbon may have escaped into the air and it may have bonded with oxygen. The variation to their localities are, potentially infinite. But there is NO change to their atomic structures.
The only variation apart from locality is in the bound condition of the amalgam. Fire somehow 'unbinds' that bonded atomic condition. The thing that was previously an identifiable amalgam. ;D
EDITED
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 11:45:37 AM
LOL Omnibus. You again ignore what I've written and then post a lot of irrelevancis that claim AGAIN that I know not whereof I speak. I submit - with respect - that it is you who need to learn from your books. When you can show me a lump of coal that has any variation to the atoms after burning - then indeed I will be happy to go and revisit what little I know about physics. There may be the evaporation of some of the gases in trapped in that coal. But what you are left with after combustion is EXACTLY the same number of atoms and molecules in that coal that were there to begin with. Some of the carbon may have escaped into the air and it may have bonded with oxygen. The variation to their localities are, potentially infinite. But there is NO change to their atomic structures.
;D
Who says otherwise? Of course the atoms remain the same when a lump of coal burns. The overall mass too. What's the point?
The resistor remains the same in every way as well, not only its atoms. All the experience we have with resistors proves that. There's absolutely nothing to that and no overunity can be expected from that fact.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:05:20 AM
So, you think the resistor is losing mass when current passes through it, is that it?
Here's the relevance Omnibus. You asked me a question. I've now answered that question.
See, here we go again:
QuoteThe only variation apart from locality is in the bound condition of the amalgam. Fire somehow 'unbinds' that bonded atomic condition. The thing that was previously an identifiable amalgam.
Learn first what amalgam is before talking about it. There's no amalgam forming due to burning of coil. What is this banter about?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 11:53:01 AM
Here's the relevance Omnibus. You asked me a question. I've now answered that question.
What kind of answer can that be based on terminology and concepts you're obviously unfamiliar with? None, of course. Like I said, before juggling with big words and claiming discoveries you have to become familiar with the basics of science which you demonstratively are not.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:53:07 AM
See, here we go again:
Learn first what amalgam is before talking about it. There's no amalgam forming due to burning of coil. What is this banter about?
LOL - you're absolutely right. I have actually defined 'amalgam' in my thesis - not here. Let me address that. An amalgam is here used in the sense that anything with a three dimensional structure is considered to be an amalgam. It applies to solids and liquids and - in special cases - molecules.
Now return the favour. What is this burning of coil? Do you mean coal? If so. Then again. The coal is the amalgam prior to burning. Thereafter it is disassociated carbon atoms loosely assembled in an identifiable 'ash'. It has LOST it's bound condition.
And why do you call this 'banter'? It's way too important. LOL.
The pursuit of overunity is not about destroying science and its achievement but is to further science. There are well-established and well-understood concepts such as the nature of electric current, what chemical bonding is and how it differs from what atoms are, what fusion versus fission is, what is work, what is force and how they are related, what amalgam is and so forth and so on. In the pursuit of overunity we should build on these basic concepts and not get into frivolous banter just because some of the participants haven't taken the time and effort to understand them.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 11:56:00 AM
What kind of answer can that be based on terminology and concepts you're obviously unfamiliar with? None, of course. Like I said, before juggling with big words and claiming discoveries you have to become familiar with the basics of science which you demonstratively are not.
You will need to be precise here lest our readers assume you're ducking behind a slew of unsubstantiated allegations.
What terminology and concepts are you referring to?
What 'big words' am I using?
What discoveries am I claiming?
What aspects of basic science do I not understand?
Where am I demonstrably unfamiliar with these basic concepts?
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 12:06:30 PM
LOL - you're absolutely right. I have actually defined 'amalgam' in my thesis - not here. Let me address that. An amalgam is here used in the sense that anything with a three dimensional structure is considered to be an amalgam. It applies to solids and liquids and - in special cases - molecules.
Now return the favour. What is this burning of coil? Do you mean coal? If so. Then again. The coal is the amalgam prior to burning. Thereafter it is disassociated carbon atoms loosely assembled in an identifiable 'ash'. It has LOST it's bound condition.
And why do you call this 'banter'? It's way too important. LOL.
Coal isn't amalgam period. On the other hand current is directed flow of electrons. Period. Misunderstanding of terminology and frivolous attributing irrelevant meaning to it is not a discovery.
I don't know what the exact situation is but now I don't really believe you did the experiments yourself. Someone must have helped you in that too because the experimental results are the only part that deserves attention in your work. I don't see at that level of understanding of the basics how you could have possibly done proper experiments.
@Rosemary
Do you supply energy to the resistor just to change its molecular structure? Will this change in structure propel anything with more energy than you put in?
More questions:
If you heat a resistor with electricity (In this case), the material will expand. Maybe you can use both the heat and expansion to do work?
Vidar
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 12:08:29 PM
The pursuit of overunity is not about destroying science and its achievement but is to further science. There are well-established and well-understood concepts such as the nature of electric current, what chemical bonding is and how it differs from what atoms are, what fusion versus fission is, what is work, what is force and how they are related, what amalgam is and so forth and so on. In the pursuit of overunity we should build on these basic concepts and not get into frivolous banter just because some of the participants haven't taken the time and effort to understand them.
And here.
Where am I destroying science and its achievements?
Where have I discussed fusion versus fission
Where does my knowledge of the forces vary from mainstream.
Where does my knowledge of work vary from mainsteam
Where exactly do you regard my efforts here as 'frivolous'.
And my last question. Where have you been officially appointed as the arbiter of Over Unity and how it should be advanced or even expressed? What Omnibus are your credentials. Tell us.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 12:12:11 PM
You will need to be precise here lest our readers assume you're ducking behind a slew of unsubstantiated allegations.
What terminology and concepts are you referring to?
What 'big words' am I using?
What discoveries am I claiming?
What aspects of basic science do I not understand?
Where am I demonstrably unfamiliar with these basic concepts?
You don't know what work and its relation with force is. You don't know what chemical bonding is and how it relates to conservation of mass and the structure of the atom. You don't know the difference between fusion and fission. You don't know wht amalgam is. You don;t know what the nature of electric current is. Is that enough?
You're using big words such as dark matter before caring to acquaint yourself with the basics of physics and chemistry as i noted above.
You're claiming overunity which you have no background to sustain.
Your posts, especially the most recent once are a demonstration of glaring gaps in your understanding of basic chemistry and physics as I repeatedly pointed out.
You should know your deficiencies and should not bother experts with your irrelevant banter because it harms everybody who cares about overunity to be taken seriously. Colleagues associate thouse who study overunity with people like you and try to avoid them like the plague. Honestly, I don't blame them. One only has that much time on Earth to waste it with straightening out confused people who don't even want to listen.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 12:14:04 PM
Coal isn't amalgam period. On the other hand current is directed flow of electrons. Period. Misunderstanding of terminology and frivolous attributing irrelevant meaning to it is not a discovery.
I don't know what the exact situation is but now I don't really believe you did the experiments yourself. Someone must have helped you in that too because the experimental results are the only part that deserves attention in your work. I don't see at that level of understanding of the basics how you could have possibly done proper experiments.
You haven't answered my questions. And you continue to use spurious excuses to dismiss my work. But I've learned to expect that from you Omnibus. You do not know how to argue your statements - only how to state your opinions. They're boring, with respect. When you can actually refer to what it is you've determined with reasonable example and with reasonable argument then I'll be inclined to believe that you're as well qualified as you pretend. Until then I see these opinions as interesting but - nonetheless - irrelevant.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 12:20:20 PM
You haven't answered my questions. And you continue to use spurious excuses to dismiss my work. But I've learned to expect that from you Omnibus. You do not know how to argue your statements - only how to state your opinions. They're boring, with respect.
Your work should be dismissed out of hand because you have demonstrated complete lack of understanding of the basic principles of science. I guess those who helped you do the experiments should be encouraged to continue them until it is understood as to whether or not the overunity effect is real. This is my conclusion from the exchange we had so far.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 12:19:15 PM
You don't know what work and its relation with force is. You don't know what chemical bonding is and how it relates to conservation of mass and the structure of the atom. You don't know the difference between fusion and fission. You don't know wht amalgam is. You don;t know what the nature of electric current is. Is that enough?
You're using big words such as dark matter before caring to acquaint yourself with the basics of physics and chemistry as i noted above.
You're claiming overunity which you have no background to sustain.
Your posts, especially the most recent once are a demonstration of glaring gaps in your understanding of basic chemistry and physics as I repeatedly pointed out.
You should know your deficiencies and should not bother experts with your irrelevant banter because it harms everybody who cares about overunity to be taken seriously. Colleagues associate thouse who study overunity with people like you and try to avoid them like the plague. Honestly, I don't blame them. One only has that much time on Earth to waste it with straightening out confused people who don't even want to listen.
Omnibus. Find yourself a mirror and then read this post aloud. You're addressing the wrong person. LOL
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 12:25:14 PM
Omnibus. Find yourself a mirror and then read this post aloud. You're addressing the wrong person. LOL
Persons like you aggressively pushing their confusion should not be tolerated because it hurts everybody who cares about overunity and its acceptance at large. There are several other elements in this forum who are also pushing either their incompetence or their zealous activism to destroy overunity research. This should be nipped in the bud.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 12:29:35 PM
Persons like you aggressively pushing their confusion should not be tolerated because it hurts everybody who cares about overunity and its acceptance at large. There are several other elements in this forum who are also pushing either their incompetence or their zealous activism to destroy overunity research. This should be nipped in the bud.
Omnibus - I get it that you are very much a proponent of clean green and that you subscribe to the validity of Over Unity - here defined as the more energy dissipated at a work station than measured to be delivered. That's a really good thing. And there would be absolute consensus on this on these forums. But you are sadly deluded if you think that this can be obtained within the framework of known classical paradigms. Just mutually exclusive concepts. Sad but true. If you could prove this to be false then I'd be very interested.
What I was pointing to and what I began to think you were realising is that the ONLY thing that changes in the transfer of energy is the 'bound state' of the atoms. NOT the atoms themselves - except obviously in the condition of extreme heat where spontaneous fusion or fission can occur.
But it seems, sadly, that you're not prepard to entertain new concepts. It's indeed sad. You here reflect the attitudes of Professors that I know so well - and it's the result of entrenched belief rather than healthy exploration of scientific principle. What is entirely predictable is the need to dismiss new thinking out of hand and to do so with the assumption of authority. You do NOT have that authority. It has not been given to you by anyone on or off the forums. And it is your 'type' that does more harm to these needed paradigm shifts than any active resistance to Over Unity results. There is the understandable need to diminish what knowledge I do have. I'm well used to this. But I find it as offensive as the Medieval assumption of witchcraft and their unhappy solution to the problem.
I really need to spend my time better and trust that our many readers here may be less dismissive than yourself. I've said it before. Give us a full account of your credentials - give us your name - and then, indeed, your opinion may carry more significance. But in the final analysis - precisely because you evade the argument and precisely because you rely on broad sweeping judgements - I'm unfortunately ONLY familiar with your opinion. And that opinion is boring because it's so, so predictable.
And it's that much more offensive because it carries the protection of your anonymity. You remain nameless - not even the courage to put your real name to that opinon.EDITED
@Omnibus: Should we ask for your answers to Rosemarys questions a 100 times too?
Why can't you simply answer them, instead of trying to lead us into subjects that has nothing to do with the subject that we are trying to discuss?
I'll bet you will answer this post too with something (nonsense) you can use against me, because all you do is to say things out of the context to mislead people into deep water so you can reestablish your position above them.
Please answer the questions, and keep your nonsense somewhere we cannot see it.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 12:54:44 PM
@Omnibus: Should we ask for your answers to Rosemarys questions a 100 times too?
Why can't you simply answer them, instead of trying to lead us into subjects that has nothing to do with the subject that we are trying to discuss?
I'll bet you will answer this post too with something (nonsense) you can use against me, because all you do is to say things out of the context to mislead people into deep water so you can reestablish your position above them.
Please answer the questions, and keep your nonsense somewhere we cannot see it.
Vidar
Hey, buddy, get off my back. You're one of those I was referring to as the aggressively disruptive incompetent elements in this forum who are destroying the smooth proceeding of the discussions with their incompetence. There's one or two more like you. Like I said, this should be nipped in the bud.
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 12:16:33 PM
@Rosemary
Do you supply energy to the resistor just to change its molecular structure? Will this change in structure propel anything with more energy than you put in?
More questions:
If you heat a resistor with electricity (In this case), the material will expand. Maybe you can use both the heat and expansion to do work?
Hi Vidar. The proposal is that the 'thing' that gets transferred in the the 'transfer of energy' is binding fields that hold atoms together. In other words there's a whole world of magnetic particles that stay outside the atom but that move the atom. And I propose that these fields can move through space - and then into other areas where they bind other atoms. In the process of moving they change from fast small cold invisible particles to big, slow hot visible particles. We see this as 'sparks' or flame or when resistors get hot. The atoms stay exactly as they are. But the fields that hold them 'bound' can move from one place to another. But in moving 'away' from one amalgam they change the bound state of that amalgam. It becomes compromised - brittle - evident fatigue. If these fields are, indeed, responsible for the movement of atoms and their changing states then it would speak to a precise conservation of energy which is definitely required by science.
Picture something like this. Think of a coal fire under a ceramic pot that holds iron filings. What's proposed is that what is 'burning' are these fields that are 'sparked' alight by interrupting their orbits. They're essentially little magnets and they spill out into our measurable dimensions (means we can see them) from their earlier immeasurable dimensions (means we could not see them. Out of range of light itself. Just dark matter). Now they're fire. Then they tumble together - just like magnets would do. Then they look for somewhere new to go. They don't find any 'loose atoms' in the pot. So they move through the pot until they find the filings. Now they've got something to bind. Somewhere to house them. A new abode. Then they systematically move through those filings and bind each iron atom - one to another. Then when no more of these fields are available - then they become small and fast and cold and then just continue to orbit - while they hold the atoms in their fixed position. They're also in liquids but they can't hold that liquid stable. They're also in gasses but only when the gas is a molecule.
These are the same fields that I see transferred in electric currrent. The point is this. The fields are in the battery supply source but they're also in the resistor. The voltage imbalance from the source is transferred to the resistor. And the voltage imbalance is just a measure of these magnetic fields. When the resistor has it's own fields imbalanced - then it too becomes an energy supply source. But in becoming 'imbalanced' then some of those fields in the resistor unravel - exactly as they do in a 'fire' and that's when we see the resistor get hot.
Over unity is just a measure of this potential energy. But when it's in that 'preferred oscillation mode' then that energy imbalance is speeded up - depending on the frequency of the oscillation and the result is a gain in the amount of energy dissipated to the amount of energy delivered. I hope that's clear. It's a very 'broad brushstoke' explanation. I can try and improve on it if it's still confusing. Ask away.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 12:52:53 PM
Omnibus - I get it that you are very much a proponent of clean green and that you subscribe to the validity of Over Unity - here defined as the more energy dissipated at a work station than measured to be delivered. That's a really good thing. And there would be absolute consensus on this on these forums. But you are sadly deluded if you think that this can be obtained within the framework of known classical paradigms. Just mutually exclusive concepts. Sad but true. If you could prove this to be false then I'd be very interested.
What I was pointing to and what I began to think you were realising is that the ONLY thing that changes in the transfer of energy is the 'bound state' of the atoms. NOT the atoms themselves - except obviously in the condition of extreme heat where spontaneous fusion or fission can occur.
But it seems, sadly, that you're not prepard to entertain new concepts. It's indeed sad. You here reflect the attitudes of Professors that I know so well - and it's the result of entrenched belief rather than healthy exploration of scientific principle. What is entirely predictable is the need to dismiss new thinking out of hand and to do so with the assumption of authority. You do NOT have that authority. It has not been given to you by anyone on or off the forums. And it is your 'type' that does more harm to these needed paradigm shifts than any active resistance to Over Unity results. There is the understandable need to diminish what knowledge I do have. I'm well used to this. But I find it as offensive as the Medieval assumption of witchcraft and their unhappy solution to the problem.
I really need to spend my time better and trust that our many readers here may be less dismissive than yourself. I've said it before. Give us a full account of your credentials - give us your name - and then, indeed, your opinion may carry more significance. But in the final analysis - precisely because you evade the argument and precisely because you rely on broad sweeping judgements - I'm unfortunately ONLY familiar with your opinion. And that opinion is boring because it's so, so predictable. And it's that much more offensive because it carries the protection of your anonymity. You remain nameless - not even the courage to put your real name to that opinon.
EDITED
I'm indeed not prepared to entertain irrelevant banter at odds with well understood basics presented as new concepts. No one in his or her right mind would be prepared to entertain such a thing. This is what's harmful to do (to entertain irrelevant banter presented as new concepts) in this overunity revolution we're waging. Such compilation of inadequacy will turn off every professional who has spent years in systematic study of the subject and I will fight it till my last breath. Academia must accept the relevant new ideas in overunity because nothing can compete with the infrastructure and power Academia has to further these ideas. Turning off academics with demonstrable incompetence puts everybody connected with OU in a situation to expect that anyone talking about overunity is a nut case. Because of that they dismiss even the valid arguments out of hand before even hearing them. That has to change and here in this forum is one place this to be told clear and simple.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 01:52:28 PM
I'm indeed not prepared to entertain irrelevant banter at odds with well understood basics presented as new concepts. No one in his or her right mind would be prepared to entertain such a thing. This is what's harmful to do (to entertain irrelevant banter presented as new concepts) in this overunity revolution we're waging. Such compilation of inadequacy will turn off every professional who has spent years in systematic study of the subject and I will fight it till my last breath. Academia must accept the relevant new ideas in overunity because nothing can compete with the infrastructure and power Academia has to further these ideas. Turning off academics with demonstrable incompetence puts everybody connected with OU in a situation to expect that anyone talking about overunity is a nut case. Because of that they dismiss even the valid arguments out of hand before even hearing them. That has to change and here in this forum is one place this to be told clear and simple.
I would be surprised if you ever read my model and I'd be alarmed if you ever approved it. I prefer it that we never see eye to eye.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 01:42:06 PM
Hey, buddy, get off my back. You're one of those I was referring to as the aggressively disruptive incompetent elements in this forum who are destroying the smooth proceeding of the discussions with their incompetence. There's one or two more like you. Like I said, this should be nipped in the bud.
What smooth proceeding? Your tirade and your slew of unsubstantiated opinion hardly constitutes 'smooth proceedings'. And this is NOT a discussion. It's simply a record of your opinion about things.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 02:00:13 PM
I would be surprised if you ever read my model and I'd be alarmed if you ever approved it. I prefer it that we never see eye to eye.
No need to read it. The minute you say electric current in solid conductors isn't directed flow of current and that's what your model is all about, it should be dismissed out of hand. Because, in order for your model to be correct it should be able to do the impossible -- to explain away all simple experimental facts proving that electric current is exactly directed flow of electrons. I'm not even mentioning the additional causes, revealed during the discussion, demonstrating stark misunderstanding of basics. That's in addition. It may well happen that someone unfamiliar with the basics might have hit on something rational. That's not the case here either.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 02:08:01 PM
No need to read it. The minute you say electric current in solid conductors isn't directed flow of current and that's what your model is all about, it should be dismissed out of hand. Because, in order for your model to be correct it should be able to do the impossible -- to explain away all simple experimental facts proving that electric current is exactly directed flow of electrons. I'm not even mentioning the additional causes, revealed during the discussion, demonstrating stark misunderstanding of basics. That's in addition. It may well happen that someone unfamiliar with the basics might have hit on something rational. That's not the case here either.
LOL Omnibus. Thank goodness there is more to science than your opinions.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 02:04:10 PM
What smooth proceeding? You're tirade and your slew of unsubstantiated opinion hardly constitutes 'smooth proceedings'. And this is NOT a discussion. It's simply a record of your opinion about things.
My arguments are substantiated. Everyone can see that. For instance, I explained in detail why your dismissal of flow of electrons as the nature of electric current goes against the well established laws of Faraday, electrochemistry and electric theory in general. I did that more than once. Unsubstantiated is to dismiss these well established, easily demonstrable facts and aggressively push something completely at odds with facts and scientific method, as you're doing.
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 17, 2010, 02:10:58 PM
LOL Omnibus. Thank goodness there is more to science than your opinions.
These are not my opinions. Faraday's law is not my opinion. Laws of electrochemistry and of electric theory in general are not my opinion. The mentioned laws constitute areas of science while dismissing them is non-scientific and that's what you're doing.
lol
Brian, apologies for hijacking this topic. I promise you - from here on my contributions will be on topic. I've just read through these pages and I'm definitely out of line.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
that's better :-)
You're doing worse than just hijacking this topic. Aggressively spreading your confusion all around the discussion board is really deplorable.
In short:
Over unity is NOT possible
Free energy IS possible
End of thread?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 03:56:31 PM
In short:
Over unity is NOT possible
Free energy IS possible
End of thread?
Vidar
Stop with that crap. Go away. No one needs your incoherent blabbering to clog the important discussions here.
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 03:56:31 PM
In short:
Over unity is NOT possible
Free energy IS possible
End of thread?
Vidar
Thanks, LQ! Yes, as of today, 17th of August, 2010, nobody couldn't prove any invalidation of the basic thermodynamical observations (and laws), which would make the famous out/in relation OVER-UNITY!
Of course, this will not stop the world-wide fame troll "OmniBot" to further pollute threads and forums and all the people with his pathetic bull-shit claims like "I proved it beyond a reason of a doubt ..." nonsense.
What a farce!
Quote from: spinn_MP on August 17, 2010, 04:11:54 PM
Thanks, LQ! Yes, as of today, 17th of August, 2010, nobody couldn't prove any invalidation of the basic thermodynamical observations (and laws), which would make the famous out/in relation OVER-UNITY!
Of course, this will not stop the world-wide fame troll "OmniBot" to further pollute threads and forums and all the people with his pathetic bull-shit claims like "I proved it beyond a reason of a doubt ..." nonsense.
What a farce!
Don't pollute the forum with your crap.
Idiot!
Good, we've exchanged opinions about each other.
Now, seriously, will you ever stop spewing your nonsense?
Quote from: spinn_MP on August 17, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
Idiot!
Good, we've exchanged opinions about each other.
Now, seriously, will you ever stop spewing your nonsense?
Stop blabbering gibberish you troll.
Quote from: Omnibus on August 17, 2010, 04:45:46 PM
Stop blabbering gibberish you troll.
But it's so funny! The God of Trolls is calling me - a Troll? OK, I'm out of here....
Btw, don't forget to take your pills... Remember what happened the last time you forgot...
Quote from: spinn_MP on August 17, 2010, 04:53:42 PM
But it's so funny! The God of Trolls is calling me - a Troll? OK, I'm out of here....
Btw, don't forget to take your pills... Remember what happened the last time you did that...
Get out of here. The sooner the better, nasty troll.
This periodic infestation with trolls is a real problem. Automatic bots, zealous activists jumping at the opportunity to damage the discussions and plane and simple incompetents. This has happened more than once. The discussions go smooth and suddenly a campaign of trolls. That will go away this time too but it's a test how firm the confidence in this area of research is among the participants. A sociological study of sorts by the crusaders of the mainstream faith.
I know how to fry a chicken in only 2 seconds...I use a SMOT and amplify the magic square so the magnet can pull Omnibus into a black hole, but the black hole cannot keep Omnibus in order, so a huge explosion will activate the SMOT, and then the chicken get hit by the steel ball that is traveling faster than light, into the chickens rectum, and fries it for 2 seconds - even after if the steel ball has passed the moon...
Then the tidal power will finally force Omnibus to change gender, and before you know it she is sitting in an old chair and knitting woolen gloves. Looking forward to it...
Quote from: Low-Q on August 17, 2010, 05:45:46 PM
I know how to fry a chicken in only 2 seconds...I use a SMOT and amplify the magic square so the magnet can pull Omnibus into a black hole, but the black hole cannot keep Omnibus in order, so a huge explosion will activate the SMOT, and then the chicken get hit by the steel ball that is traveling faster than light, into the chickens rectum, and fries it for 2 seconds - even after if the steel ball has passed the moon...
Then the tidal power will finally force Omnibus to change gender, and before you know it she is sitting in an old chair and knitting woolen gloves. Looking forward to it...
You're trying to be a clown but aren't even funny.
I wasn't talking to you.