If you go to the bottom of this you might see how mainstream science is on the quest for overunity as well

http://revolution-green.com/what-is-break-through-energy/


Kind Regards
Mark

@Mark

QuoteThe trouble is the speakers at these conferences speaking of suppression are just simply conspiracy theorists on steroids looking for an new platform.

I believe Ford was found guilty of letting hundreds of people die rather than replace a $0.25 seatbelt part and one can pick up any newspaper and read of similar instances of corporate corruption. Most experts agree corporate corruption is rampant such as the latest VW emissions scandal. The list of instances supported by fact just seems to go on and on yet here you are telling us a revolutionary new energy technology would never be suppressed... are you drunk Mark?. Oh, yes the corporations would let hundreds of people die over a $0.25 part but they would never suppress free energy, they would never do that. What you are suggesting is absurd Mark.

QuoteThe following research breaks through some known limits or "unity levels". In real science overunity is achieving a result greater than the theoretical limits of harvesting and converting energy.

Does OU really break through some known limits?. Here's the analogy, I place a COP>1 device I designed and built on a table and fire it up. Then you and people like you take some wild ass leap of faith that this is somehow a violation of the conservation of energy and a perpetual motion machine. Should people believe your opinion based on sheer speculation and a complete lack of any real facts concerning this technology or should they presume something may be happening they do not understand?. You see, this is the problem with people who presume they must be correct about everything. It's not so much a technical issue but more so a personality disorder relating to psychology. The correct answer, the sane answer is I do now know what is happening... uhm because you don't.

QuoteSo why are these topics not covered at the BEM?
The answer may be from simple ignorance to mainstream science not fitting into the agendas of the people running these organisations.

Ignorance to mainstream science?. It could also be an exceptional grasp of mainstream science that most people cannot seem to understand. I mean we have irrefutable proof from our history that great minds not unlike Volta, Faraday, Steinmetz, Tesla, Einstein etc... routinely did what 99% of others thought impossible -- so how is this any different?. Maybe the reason you cannot understand it is because you are not a great mind, maybe, just maybe you are quite ordinary... has that thought ever occurred to you?.

In any case there is always some fool saying something cannot be done while others are in the process of doing it... it is the way of the world.

AC

Quote from: allcanadian on May 17, 2016, 02:29:16 PM
@Mark
I believe Ford was found guilty of letting hundreds of people die rather than replace a $0.25 seatbelt part and one can pick up any newspaper and read of similar instances of corporate corruption. Most experts agree corporate corruption is rampant such as the latest VW emissions scandal. The list of instances supported by fact just seems to go on and on yet here you are telling us a revolutionary new energy technology would never be suppressed... are you drunk Mark?. Oh, yes the corporations would let hundreds of people die over a $0.25 part but they would never suppress free energy, they would never do that. What you are suggesting is absurd Mark.

Does OU really break through some known limits?. Here's the analogy, I place a COP>1 device I designed and built on a table and fire it up. Then you and people like you take some wild ass leap of faith that this is somehow a violation of the conservation of energy and a perpetual motion machine. Should people believe your opinion based on sheer speculation and a complete lack of any real facts concerning this technology or should they presume something may be happening they do not understand?. You see, this is the problem with people who presume they must be correct about everything. It's not so much a technical issue but more so a personality disorder relating to psychology. The correct answer, the sane answer is I do now know what is happening... uhm because you don't.

Ignorance to mainstream science?. It could also be an exceptional grasp of mainstream science that most people cannot seem to understand. I mean we have irrefutable proof from our history that great minds not unlike Volta, Faraday, Steinmetz, Tesla, Einstein etc... routinely did what 99% of others thought impossible -- so how is this any different?. Maybe the reason you cannot understand it is because you are not a great mind, maybe, just maybe you are quite ordinary... has that thought ever occurred to you?.

In any case there is always some fool saying something cannot be done while others are in the process of doing it... it is the way of the world.

AC

As usual you reply with irrelevance and mix up topics like safety/emission regulations with energy suppression. We do agree on one thing, there is always a role for a fool.


Please point to me any evidence to support your rhetoric, which I doubt will happen given your track record


You opinion is important like everyone elses and support your right to express it.


Kind Regards
Mark

@Mark


It's what you implied that I found disturbing Mark.

QuoteWe often hear about splitting hydrogen in energy efficient ways, but the truth is no one has ever been able to achieve this. If so where is the evidence, the third party validation the peer review?

How do you know no one has ever achieved this?, the fact is you don't know because you can't know everything and have no credible evidence either way thus it is not a truth in any sense of the word.

QuoteWhy did they not suppress Tesla who just received deposits for over 350,000 electric cars? Surely that could be considered more disruptive to big oil than some back yard inventor with an E-CatThe trouble is the speakers at these conferences speaking of suppression are just simply conspiracy theorists on steroids looking for an new platform.

Here you imply the BEM speakers are conspiracy theorists and big oil would never suppress back yard inventors which we know is false from multiple sources. If big oil didn't suppress Tesla Motors then they would never suppress a backyard inventor is what you implied was it not?. Presuming a perceived relationship between things (Tesla and a backyard inventor) to substantiate the false notion that no backyard inventor has ever been suppressed by big oil.

Quote
To the main speakers I ask "show me just one example of any breakthrough energy technology that can be confirmed and reliably reproduce under the Global BEM definition " an abundant energy source, which produce zero-emissions, operate with a COP > 1″ ?

Most of these people have good intentions, but Bullshit is Bullshit.

Here you imply the speakers are full of bullshit and because you have never seen a COP>1 device they cannot exist... as you say they are bullshit. I have to wonder, does everything you have never seen in person not exist or do you simply believe it exists?.

QuoteBe warned this is above many of our pay scales to fully understand, but I want to use it to illustrate how the quest for overunity is actually becoming  a reality in mainstream science.

Your implying this is not for us common folk and no non-scientist has any proof of OU as you have claimed many times. However now mainstream science is somehow making it a reality. So all those backyard inventors making similar claims in the past, those thousands of related patents in the past were just pseudo science and now mainstream science is doing it in reality. Uhm, no there not doing it in reality their making claims just like all those other people making claims in the past... but this time apparently it's different but not really.

QuoteSo why are these topics not covered at the BEM?The answer may be from simple ignorance to mainstream science not fitting into the agendas of the people running these organisations.

Does every agenda you do not agree with or that does not fit with mainstream science mean the people are ignorant?. I think that's a lot of ignorant people, easily over six billion I reckon. Non-conformity does not imply ignorance, that is absurd.


The whole article is littered with such innuendo and bias in my opinion. However you never say it outright but skirt around the issue always implying something from a distance and casting doubt on it as a form of pseudo verification. I understand this may be seen as just nit-picking however it pissed me off enough that I commented on it. I see this form of journalism all too often in the mainstream media where a strongly biased opinion is peddled as a neutral perspective.




AC

Quote from: allcanadian on May 18, 2016, 02:13:12 AM
@Mark


It's what you implied that I found disturbing Mark.



How do you know no one has ever achieved this?, the fact is you don't know because you can't know everything and have no credible evidence either way thus it is not a truth in any sense of the word.


That is easy to prove me wrong. (I am happy to be proved wrong) Show me the data. I have investigated many claims over many years and none ever was able to support the claim.





Here you imply the BEM speakers are conspiracy theorists and big oil would never suppress back yard inventors which we know is false from multiple sources. If big oil didn't suppress Tesla Motors then they would never suppress a backyard inventor is what you implied was it not?. Presuming a perceived relationship between things (Tesla and a backyard inventor) to substantiate the false notion that no backyard inventor has ever been suppressed by big oil.


I only suggested a few or one GBEM speakers. As mentioned it might have been true a decade or generation ago but at the moment the opposite is happening. Investors and governments are backing energy mavericks like Elon Musk. Also departments like DOE are backing yourng scientists working on a variety of disruptive technologies.


Here you imply the speakers are full of bullshit and because you have never seen a COP>1 device they cannot exist... as you say they are bullshit.


No the only Bullshit is when they have claimed overunity and can not back up the claim. Normally they are victums of their own measurements. I fully encourage and support research into these areas and am a researcher myself



Your implying this is not for us common folk and no non-scientist has any proof of OU as you have claimed many times. However now mainstream science is somehow making it a reality. So all those backyard inventors making similar claims in the past, those thousands of related patents in the past were just pseudo science and now mainstream science is doing it in reality. Uhm, no there not doing it in reality their making claims just like all those other people making claims in the past... but this time apparently it's different but not really.


Once again you failed to realize what I said. Main stream science is on a parallel path many backyard inventors. A patent does not prove something works as claimed, many people are often mistaken by this. As many people and websites failed to do for decadsee just show evidence, data or anything that would support one of these claims. Resorting to nonsensical rhetoric serves no purpose in forwarding knowledge, research and experience



Does every agenda you do not agree with or that does not fit with mainstream science mean the people are ignorant?. I think that's a lot of ignorant people, easily over six billion I reckon. Non-conformity does not imply ignorance, that is absurd.


No I have seen things that can not been explained by science, but the data supported the claim. You tend to generlize a lot and make assumptions. Why not focus on the detail and show me the data.


The whole article is littered with such innuendo and bias in my opinion. However you never say it outright but skirt around the issue always implying something from a distance and casting doubt on it as a form of pseudo verification. I understand this may be seen as just nit-picking however it pissed me off enough that I commented on it. I see this form of journalism all too often in the mainstream media where a strongly biased opinion is peddled as a neutral perspective.


As I said you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to disagree with you. I base my opinion on outcomes and experience not wistful thinking.
Kind Regards




AC