My question for detractors of overunity

[PolyMatrix]

...
has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity.  That point's classified as a personal problem.  In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied.  You were asking weren't you?

Bessler007

Yep it would be thought that, or it could be thought of as wondering if some known solutions might actually cause more social problems than it cures.

As to whether my stupidity is excused or not that is an SEP. (Somebody else's problem  ) I is what I is.

Build it? Now why did I not think of doing that! - hmmm - did I mention I know nothing? 

[Bessler007]

I think I got this from a Tesla you-tube video.  He was working I think at his Colorado facility and in an experiment blew out the generators of the local power supplier.  They refused to sell him any power until he went and repaired their generators.

Tesla had pretty good money connections.  He also had the personal means to accomplish quite a lot.  If he could actually produce power the way he claimed, what was he buying power from a utility for?  I just searched and I think it was this link or part 2 of that series:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTiiblwwLPk&feature=related

If you want to know the skeptics point of view it's this.  If there is Over Unity then demonstrate it.  If all you have is a theory based on the relativistic speeds of the cosmos or quantum physics for a model of OU then what you really have is intellectual masturbation.  You have nothing until you actual make a model that works.

The principle of seeing energy and thinking you'll tap into it isn't a working principle for OU.  A viable principle is in the form of the first law (energy can't be created or destroyed).  It could be like this:

• 
  It is possible to harvest energy between two frames of reference and deliver it between two future frames over less time providing more power in the future than you initially harvested.

The principle or hypothesis should lead to some manner to test it.   The most powerful point the skeptic makes is, "where is this model of your theory?"  When you consider all the testing that has been done with no results you have to give the skeptic that point.  Intellectual integrity demands it.

Bessler007
mib HQ

[PolyMatrix]

I am quite happy to encourage skeptics to argue their views as balance is vital.

Theory and model is tricky as all that is available, as far as I have so far determined, are hints.

So far the following are bits and pieces that have caught my attention.

------
Tom Valone ? Lecture http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5738531568036565057&q=zero+point+energy&total=921&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Tom Bearden ? Nuclear Physicist - http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm
John Bedini - http://www.energyfromthevacuum.com/ - inventor

Daniel D demo of car running on water http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk&feature=user

Top Gear Water Car - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLKExuHlQMQ - note the comment could run the whole street off the power generated by this car.

Joe?s Cell - ? Great deal of discussion on this.
Developing and making a Joe Cell by Joe http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5838886797220015378
2006 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2878952337946217454
Note Joe thinks of this as a frequency.

Hamish Robertson site - http://www.thejoecell.com/

We've got the charging of the water down to a science thanks to
Bernie and some others. I'm now using a 4.5" tall three plate Joe
Cell with a .25" gap to charge my water. The outer cylinder is 4";
the neutral cylinder is 3.5", and the negative cylinder is 3". It
works great and works very fast. The gap made all the difference in
the world.

Related discussion group http://www.byronnewenergy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

----------------------------------------------

An experiment that I would like to see done is to use the Stan Meyers HHO production method then take say a tungsten steel rod with cold water flowing through it. Then with an HHO torch heat the rod and do all the measurement possible to capture the rise in water temperature, air temp, etc and have the energy equations summed up.

[Bessler007]

Whoa dude.  I'm so confused.  First you say you don't know nothing then you deluge me with more links than you can shake a stick at.  Which is it?  Do you know something or do you think  you know something?

Take another hint.  Here are a couple of facts you might slip into your knowledge base.  For all the claims of over unity there exists not one single example of a model.  Not one.

It is so kind of you to allow the skeptic to argue their case.  Dude, you're so generous.  It doesn't provide balance though when the skeptic argues.  Reality argues with the skeptic.  That's the 2nd fact.

If you have some experiment you'd like to see happen then make it happen.  That's what I'm doing.  I'm no skeptic but I do see their point of view.

Bessler007
mib HQ

[PolyMatrix]

Had to get some sleep.

Tom Valones Lecture actually gives an example of a model. If that is what a skeptic is looking for.

There is a phrase 'Jack of all trades, master of none'. Well my brain just collects bits and peices and makes associations between bits of 'junk' it has picked up. However I make no claim to understanding how true or false the bits of 'junk' are. So effectivly this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing.

'Reality argues with the skeptic' = Repeatable experiments.

'Scientists', should be doing the experiment otherwise they just complain about how the figures were obtained. Meanwhile inventors will continue to ignore 'Physics' and have fun making things without understanding why they are doing what they do.