Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[pauldude000]

First, a question: When did the "Skeptic" cult club start? With Galileo? Perhaps before?

The notion that "scientific skepticism" is new... is flawed.

Scientific skeptics of the day laughed at the possibility that the earth was not at the center of the universe, and that said earth was not flat. To them, anyone whom accepted such notions was a heretic and zealously ridiculed them or worse. All this while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, standing upon their credentials and laurels to irrationally justify their inherently unjustifiable attitudes. These unpopular and heretical notions put in question the very fabric of the accepted scientific and religious standpoints of the time.

I would bet, though I have no proof, that they would have aligned themselves intellectually as "modern critical thinkers", had the term existed at the time.

Just, I point out, as they still DO to this day. Nothing has changed, the earth might as well be thought of as flat. Circular logic, religious zeal, and deep rooted bias still herald the basis for modern day skepticism. By definition a demonstrable lack of the ability or usage of true critical thought for every case I have examined. (By no means just a "few" skeptics or skeptical organizations.) Bold and bald empty assertions invariably litter their "about us" pages.

Truthfully, most "skepticism" stems from fear.

Skepticism when closely examined is based upon personal bias. In other words preconceived notions. 

Science itself could care less about such spiritual realms as astrology, religion, and such concepts as 'ufo's being extraterrestrial'. These things in great part fall completely out of the realm of the study of the natural universe, and the ones that do tend to be possible both scientifically and logically speaking.

Considering the last.. logical application towards "ufo's" leads to the large and scientifically accepted possibility of life elsewhere. This would logically yield the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, the fact that they may be far advanced in technology in comparison to us, and therefore may possess knowledge we do not which allows them to travel despite our current constraints in understanding.....

Most of these self proclaimed skeptics are stepping OUT of science speaking about the truth/untruth concerning completely non-scientific matters such as spirituality, religion,  and faith, or in relatively unstudied areas such as alternative medicine/therapy. Amazingly enough, they boldly speak about areas OUTSIDE of their frame of expertise, as if they, themselves, are an expert in the field whom has done actual personal research on the topic..... And they still call themselves scientists versed in critical thinking.

Wake up call.... "Critical" as used in the term "Critical Thinking" has nothing to do with either "disapproval", "dislike", or "negative". Critical Thinking is the ability to apply logical, ordered, and rational thought towards a subject or issue, NOT to be critical in the negative sense towards an issue..... Sorry to disabuse those who have forgotten this. (Or perhaps never knew.) Critical thinking starts with a desire for truth, and culminates with an acceptance and disregard of personal biases and accepting a possible flaw in our own understanding when rationally examining a concept... not pandering to our inherent flaws and irrationally defending any specific possibility due to personal opinion or outlook.

Those that do such may claim to be critical thinkers, but they demonstrate the truth of the matter...... It is just a personal salve to their own minds. In reality an example of gratuitous self justification, a means to assume that they are more rational than the subjects of their scorn.

To quote an old saying... "Sarcasm is the refuge of a weak mind."

If you must resort to sarcasm as a means of rational discourse, you already lost whatever argument you probably started, as your logical defense completely evaporated.

This designates a simple and provable truth. To achieve a definitive conclusion to either a negative OR positive without substantive data equally are an abject demonstration of the absence of critical thought methods and processes.

Skeptics... on the whole you are NO DIFFERENT than your protagonists. In fact, you may actually be demonstrating LESS capability of rational thought than they, on a case by case basis depending upon their own capabilities.

Open-mindedness is a REQUIREMENT of ones truly rational thought capability when applied to critical thinking.

With all these things in mind, let us examine such thoughts as overunity (COP>1), Free Energy, and their basis... the notion of perpetual motion.

First, let us postulate that the realm of possibility is limited only by the constraints of the universe itself.  Therefore, "nature" itself should give evidence of the actuality or at least a hint of possibility of a potential concept.

Well, are there examples in nature of perpetual motion? (Do I even have to ask?)

The answer is that nature EVERYWHERE demonstrates them.

From the tireless and ever-present fridge magnet dutifully holding papers, potentially for hundreds of years against the relentless pull of gravity inexorably trying to pull both said papers and the mass of the magnet itself out of place to the ground.

To the lowly electron screaming in a race against itself around the nucleus of its parent atom. 

Etc...

Etc...

Etc...

I would really like to know whom invented the negative notion according to perpetual motion anyway... A complete lack of rational thought DESPITE evidential datum readily apparent to all with just a small amount of applied critical thought..

All things considered, I have found that relatively complex questions tend to have relatively simple answers. Occam's logical razor does have merit.

"Free Energy" is simply getting out more energy than YOU put in, which is a no brainer when considering the fact that the amount of energy derived from either a fission ir fusion device is MUCH more than the energy used to cause the effect....

If a storage of any form of natural energy exists, the required amount of energy to release it is OFTEN minuscule compared to the output.

Concerning COP>1, or Overunity...... This is another matter entirely. Wherever COP>1 is demonstrated, it is not a violation of thermodynamics, it is simply the utilization of an undetermined stored energy source.   There are such things as free energy and perpetual motion, but NOT such a thing as overunity (COP>1).

The Coefficient of Power in such cases was calculated, as necessary datum was not evident in it's original calculation. Energy was neither created nor destroyed, but was transformed from some source in some manner into a usable format.

Therefore, when someone discovers COP>1... don't shout overunity, shout KEWL as right now the concept of COP<1.

You have simply approached one step further towards COP=1.

Paul Andrulis

[exnihiloest]

Skepticism is doubt. It is the only way to challenge conventional wisdom accepted as true by the public, the experts or the believers. If you have no doubt, why would you challenge the human knowledge of the world? In this sense Galileo or Kepler were skeptics. When you are skeptic, you have always doubts, not only about OU claims, but also about academic science. Skepticism is not domain dependent.

The academic scientific knowledge was founded by people having a high intellectual level (Newton is credited with an IQ of 160). The academic scientific knowledge is also founded on a solid background: the laws and models of physics are internally consistent from a mathematical and logical viewpoint, and the millions of products of the technology based on it, prove this knowledge is right (not complete but right). Therefore in order to challenge conventional science, it is needed to know it, to have an intellectual rigor at least equal to this of conventional scientists, and to give evidence of what is asserted beyond any doubt.

We see clearly it is not the case today. There are hundreds of OU claims but not one that I can duplicate. If there are here tens of threads about miraculous devices that some of us try to duplicate, it is because nobody yet succeeded in building one that works. As the most of OU claims are not more complicated than the Naudin's lifter (which was astounding but conventional and working, and has been duplicated many times), we have no other reason to fail in trying duplicating OU devices than the fact that these devices are completely bogus.

Thus, critical minds provide doubts. Even though some of them are ironic, they are not negative. But those to whom they are addressed prefer choosing this easy way of "negativity" for avoiding to give real answers with rational arguments and experimental proofs that they know they have not. It is just for them a question of lack of intellectual honesty and rigor, they prefer to dream and believe instead of to work and verify.
The field of "over unity" is becoming a new religion with gurus like Bearden or Bedini and hundreds of followers chanting their new gospel truth while trusting intellectual swindlers. They have even hijacked the work of the great inventor Tesla to make him one of them, who he is not.

The method of these followers is based on:
- ignorance and innate science (these know-it-all don't know and don't understand conventional science).
- "Coué method" (to repeat always the same thing to convince themselves)
- fallacy of argument from ignorance (reversing the burden of proof)
- theories of conspiracy
- rejection of objections as being negative blasphemies
- exploitation of the real science only for points giving credit to their allegations, rejection in the other cases
- denigration of conventional scientists and science, without facts, logic or more consistent theories.

Their result is:
- not one working machine
- misinterpretation of conventional effects reinterpreted as OU
- as many fuzzy theories as guys, no general consensus
- sources of wasting time for open mind scientists and real experimenters
- no hope of progress because they are always satisfied of themselves and deny objections

The question is less to challenge the academic science (the scientists do it themselves, see arXiv) than to debunk too many over-unity nonsenses in order to find out the rare but hidden valuable pearl.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

I 'am sceptic but a "good sceptic": I 'am open minded with OU devices, but If OU exist you may able to close the loop and selfrunning, I have never saw this kind of device: A cloosed loop device work like this:
!--------------->OU device---------->Load (excess energy)
!                                            !
!                               Regulator/Inverter(fractional portion of the output)
!--<-------------<---------------!

The problem of failing the replication of OU devices is the lack of information and plan, only a brief description and sometimes only a couple of photo... It's nearly impossible to replicate correctly in these condition a device...

[pauldude000]

Your post is so large, I shall have to address it piecemeal by necessity to logically address the various points and maintain a semblance of order.

Skepticism is doubt. It is the only way to challenge conventional wisdom accepted as true by the public, the experts or the believers. If you have no doubt, why would you challenge the human knowledge of the world?

In the true application of the term yes, you are correct. However, in today's usage a skeptic is the self imposed "defender of the faith" so to speak, whom labels anyone whom transgresses the boundaries of said faith as a "pseudoscientist". Galileo et al by current terms would be labeled as such, when as you say, they are in fact the true skeptics.

The academic scientific knowledge was founded by people having a high intellectual level (Newton is credited with an IQ of 160).

I am sorry to have to say this, but this is pure egotism speaking. Unfortunately we are trained to think in this manner these days. More knowledged yes, more intelligent no. Desire plays a large part in a person's chosen field. A certifiable genius might well choose to be a farmer... because said person enjoys growing plants. You compare apples to oranges with this assertion.

The academic scientific knowledge is also founded on a solid background: the laws and models of physics are internally consistent from a mathematical and logical viewpoint, and the millions of products of the technology based on it, prove this knowledge is right (not complete but right). Therefore in order to challenge conventional science, it is needed to know it, to have an intellectual rigor at least equal to this of conventional scientists, and to give evidence of what is asserted beyond any doubt.

Is this critical thinking? If anyone requires extraordinary evidence, then they demonstrate extraordinary bias. All scientific claims requires the same levels of evidence and methods of proof. This is called the scientific method, anything else is non-scientific. In accusation, the burden of proof is upon the accuser, not the accused.

The concept you propose, though a common one, is translated as "guilty until proven innocent".

We see clearly it is not the case today. There are hundreds of OU claims but not one that I can duplicate. If there are here tens of threads about miraculous devices that some of us try to duplicate, it is because nobody yet succeeded in building one that works. As the most of OU claims are not more complicated than the Naudin's lifter (which was astounding but conventional and working, and has been duplicated many times), we have no other reason to fail in trying duplicating OU devices than the fact that these devices are completely bogus.

This is a massive assertion with no evidential nor logical base. It is comparable to saying in medieval times "Man had fire for X thousands of years, therefore gunpowder cannot exist as we should have easily discovered it." 

Gunpowder is a substance that burns and is composed of three common substances. However, unless combined in the proper proportions, then apply fire, you will not "discover" gunpowder. Like many truly "new" concepts, was probably discovered not by purpose by instead by accident, and refined over a long period of time to the substance we have today, yet every caveman living in or passing through a volcanically active area had easy access to all three. "Breakthroughs" tend to be by nature accidental, and not purposeful, a "what would happen if I did this?" scenario.

Concerning an OU device, what are the odds statistically of stumbling across a set of frequencies which combined cause a special effect in a specially wound coil, when the effect was found by sheer accident. Especially if the inventor did not himself truly understand why the effect was happening and could not therefore easily re-duplicate the event?

The truth is, if you had nothing but a grainy black and white video showing gunpowder being made by hand with no explanations, you would still not be able to make gunpowder. Trying to say you could do so with something potentially more complex is staggering. It would be somewhat of an educated accident if accomplished.

Device duplication therefore is reasonably not impossible, but instead extremely improbable.

Thus, critical minds provide doubts. Even though some of them are ironic, they are not negative. But those to whom they are addressed prefer choosing this easy way of "negativity" for avoiding to give real answers with rational arguments and experimental proofs that they know they have not.

So, you then state that outright insults, implied derogation, statements of "pseudoscience", "Ignorance","scams", etc., etc., etc., are somehow "not negative"?

Do we live in the same universe?

It is just for them a question of lack of intellectual honesty and rigor, they prefer to dream and believe instead of to work and verify.

Highly self serving considering the same skeptics I refer to boldly state that THEY have no obligation to examine the evidence. Circular reasoning and deflection. By doing so in the name of science, they demonstrate scientific dishonesty and lack of rigor and refuse to do their chosen jobs and actually examine evidence. To be closed minded is exactly no different in demonstrable effect than to be too open minded.

The latter gets lost, and the former never leaves the security of the porch.

Neither locate or approach the desired goal.

The field of "over unity" is becoming a new religion with gurus like Bearden or Bedini and hundreds of followers chanting their new gospel truth while trusting intellectual swindlers. They have even hijacked the work of the great inventor Tesla to make him one of them, who he is not.

Tesla was a disciple of eastern mysticism, and it greatly affected his thought processes towards the structure of the universe. By both modern and previous definition he was heretic concerning his beliefs. Tesla himself admitted this. He was also a proponent of the Aether, and was derogatory towards the notion of relativity. Also self pronounced.

You choose a funny example to bring forward as a example of "scientific purity".

The method of these followers is based on:
- ignorance and innate science (these know-it-all don't know and don't understand conventional science).
- "Coué method" (to repeat always the same thing to convince themselves)
- fallacy of argument from ignorance (reversing the burden of proof)
- theories of conspiracy
- rejection of objections as being negative blasphemies
- exploitation of the real science only for points giving credit to their allegations, rejection in the other cases
- denigration of conventional scientists and science, without facts, logic or more consistent theories.

Their result is:
- not one working machine
- misinterpretation of conventional effects reinterpreted as OU
- as many fuzzy theories as guys, no general consensus
- sources of wasting time for open mind scientists and real experimenters
- no hope of progress because they are always satisfied of themselves and deny objections

My purpose with this post is not to insult you, perceived or otherwise. I could point by point demonstrate how each of these is emulated by the self-described critics. "Critic" being the more accurate term than the self description of skeptic.

I am by nature a skeptic. However, I am NOT a modern skeptic in the usage of the term. I try not make absurd assertions about concepts I have not researched or heavily investigated temporarily setting aside personal bias in the study.

The question is less to challenge the academic science (the scientists do it themselves, see arXiv) than to debunk too many over-unity nonsenses in order to find out the rare but hidden valuable pearl.

If your purpose is to "debunk", then I outrightly question your motive, as science is the business of discovery, evaluation, and quantification of evidence towards natural processes not the business of "debunking" various claims. That makes the desire personal and not professional.

Science does not need defenders, as truth by definition does not change. If something is true, then it will be true tomorrow, no matter what false claims are made. Ten million people can suddenly claim there is no such thing as gravity, yet not one will suddenly float off into space due solely from the claim.

Sagan may have started a cult with CSICOP, but it is amazing how many "believers" he has accumulated over the years. Everything they accuse others of, they themselves are also guilty.

When did truth so lose its immutability that  it requires defense? Of what egotism does it require to make of oneself a self imposed policeman of one's own conception of what is or is not truth?

If someone is scamming for money, they will go to jail as the drama unfolds. If someone makes a bold claim, their own words combined with evidence over time will either vindicate them, or expose them as liers as the case may be. These things have been true since the beginning.

I truly do not understand this illogically burning need in some persons minds to defend that which can more than defend itself.

Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

I 'am sceptic but a "good sceptic": I 'am open minded with OU devices, but If OU exist you may able to close the loop and selfrunning, I have never saw this kind of device: A cloosed loop device work like this:
!--------------->OU device---------->Load (excess energy)
!                                            !
!                               Regulator/Inverter(fractional portion of the output)
!--<-------------<---------------!

The problem of failing the replication of OU devices is the lack of information and plan, only a brief description and sometimes only a couple of photo... It's nearly impossible to replicate correctly in these condition a device...

I hope I can emulate you properly on this, as I too am a skeptic whom makes the attempt to apply critical thinking. At times my better nature, then my attempt fails which I then regret. :-)

If all possible energy sources influincing an effect are considered (including the notorious ZPE) then COP=1.

However, we deal with a science based upon a deceptive view of open and closed systems, of which I have yet to find a completely closed system. The closest attempt I know of to this date towards a truly closed system found and could not eliminate ZPE. In truth, a conceptual closed system breaks down to the concept of "I". "I" apply X voltage or X force and Y is the "known" potential so Z should be the resultant output.

If in applying X.. additional indeterminate energy Y1 acts upon the system increasing the Z output, then I fool myself into thinking I have achieved overunity, when in reality what I assumed as COP=1 was in fact COP<1.

A self running machine is drawing upon some form of energy storage source, whether particulate or field. The storage source in question was always present, but some trigger allowed its usage in the particular device in question. Since it was not included in the original calculation of COP, then the concept of COP was not at fault, but the calculation of COP was incorrect.

As to the replication.... I have to agree with you 100%.  Finding the proverbial needle in a haystack probably has better statistical odds.

Paul Andrulis