Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Fuelless Engine Plans

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wazzup
 


hello chap,A popular program over in the uk.
Car runs off hydrogen fuel and a fuel cell,nothing that revolutionary there.Fuel cells were used in the space program.
People seem to forget that to gain hydrogen as a fuel ,electricity is need on a huge scale in current plants/refineries ,to make lots hydrogen in the first place then it gets put into the car then used as fuel ,to generate electricity/water by product?

Big oil argue it is only themselves ,that have the infrastructure(distribution/refinery sites/) to do this,and they can make money from its distribution/development due to the fact they consider themselves not as big oil anymore rather big energy .

direct electric cars seem to offer some benefitsat least in cities(IMO)over hydrogen electric .plug in /recharge changes Big energies market,you would not need gas stations ,just a socket
using electric to "make" hydrogen to put in a tank to then make electric via a fuel cell seems the long way round,however the whole cost of batteries,their production/materials/lifespan/weight,must be looked at in the case of fullyelectric so its swings and roundabouts.

At the moment for longer journeys and endurance hydrogen electric is the way.
With the battery technology improving so much ,due in main to mobile phone technology fully electric can make sense in urban areas at the moment and will improve in the near future

GM have new hydrogen car out ,yawn...lol ,have a look at the Tesla roadster Top gear tested in monaco with Roger Moore 007 instead

oto 60 4.0 secs 160 top speed ,linear acceleration ,cant remember the range ,150 miles springs to mind

lol the one with the water filled car is a differnt sort of water car.....how cold does that water look.
best wishes gambon


[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]




posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I know you want to be right, in matter of fact, we would love it if you were right.


Well i know that PHYSICISTS are right so my needs and wants doesn't come into this. I am relieved to hear that you 'love' the idea of much cheaper energy.


It would mean an end to the energy crisis... not to mention, infinite energy for the rest of mankinds existence.


It does not mean there will be a end to the energy crisis and it most certainly does not mean that energy will be freer or cheaper for rest of mankind's existence; here are many resources that could be free today, such as water, yet we pay


There are usually two types of scientific minds, those who stick to rationality and engineering, and those who are a little more fanciful in their thinking... I suppose "eccentric" would be a good term to use.


There are in fact just two type of scientist; those who provided accurate portrayals of the universe around them and those who do not.


When the two types of minds come together, absolutely marvelous feats are achieved. One continuously comes up with off the wall ideas, and the other searches desperately for ways to make those ideas actually work.


I would argue, with plenty of sources to boot, that the majority of scientist defends whatever is currently held to be true while a few brave souls attempts to break new ground. The few who try to achieve are more refined understanding, that seeks to clarify or overturn some laws/beliefs, are by no means always accurate but the volume of hatred levelled at such mavericks exposes why scientific progress happens so slowly.


But what you have here is a dead end. We WANT you to be right, but we know otherwise.


While i don't mind your opinion on this issue i would appreciate it if you don't tell me what i am. If you can point out to me which 'laws' of physics invalidates the notion of over-unity i will be more than happy to invest my efforts in a more fruitful area of research. As it stands there are just too many devices and proof of thought experiments that validates not only the basic tenants of over-unity but also powers loads.


It's a pity that these kinds of claims are made. It gives wishful thinkers and eccentrics false hopes, and makes the actual advancements seem like basic improvements on old designs.


It is a pity that ideas and machines that have been proven accurate can be suppressed for a hundred years or more and that so many wishful thinkers and eccentrics who wish to keep the world under the heels by exercising control over oil/coal are getting their way.


Kind of throws the image of engineering out of whack.


No more so than the knowledge that the vast majority of electrical engineers must in fact have a inkling of what is in fact going on and just continue as before.


I would love nothing more than if you were right about this design... but thats just not the case.


I would love nothing more than you introducing some evidence into your reasoning.


I've been misled before, back when I was young.


We are all still being misled on one issue or another and for anyone to presume that they now have a full grasp of affairs is utter folly. As i have said in this thread i can see how the majority of the devices commonly named can be fakes but since i have not yet found anything in physics that begins to invalidate the possibility i really have no reason to think that ALL the devices are part of a elaborate hoax involving so many hundreds or thousands of people.


I dedicated a good year to trying to prove to myself I wasn't wrong... in the end, I had to face the facts.
It hurts, but thats life.


Was this about a specific issue? I am surprised you managed to convince yourself you were not wrong as there are very few people that are so stupid/ignorant that they can not find sufficient evidence to believe whatever they like. The real test is not trying to convince yourself but reading as much as you can from everyone involved to see the arguments and counter arguments. If that does not yield a defensible answer it's best to reserve judgement even more completely, than you would have before, until you have gained sufficient related information to look at the issue again; one should always reserve some doubt and only exercise your current opinion when no alternatives presents themselves.

The real problem is not in lacking evidence/proof but in people being lazy and self serving enough to indulge themselves in beliefs that they never tested properly. If more people could reserve more judgement they would also gain the urge to find out but since everyone is in such a hurry to make up their minds they just pick whatever consensus or propaganda suggests and never reconsider ever or until it's too late.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


"The real problem is not in lacking evidence/proof but in people being lazy and self serving enough to indulge themselves in beliefs that they never tested properly. If more people could reserve more judgement they would also gain the urge to find out but since everyone is in such a hurry to make up their minds they just pick whatever consensus or propaganda suggests and never reconsider ever or until it's too late."

People like you ?

no evidence,no theories to support your idea,no experimentation ,no idea.

"While i don't mind your opinion on this issue i would appreciate it if you don't tell me what i am. If you can point out to me which 'laws' of physics invalidates the notion of over-unity i will be more than happy to invest my efforts in a more fruitful area of research."

Your research seems to consist of random cut and paste of things you seem not to have read .

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

Such a lot of blather, as usual. You want us the believe that infinite free energy sources are out there for the taking, yet you offer us nothing in terms of substantial evidence: no maths, no experiments and no devices.

You seem upset that the "scientific community" won't chase these ephemeral dreams even though you certainly won't, and just like to go on about it endlessly. This is like me getting upset because the zoologists won't investigate the invisible pink unicorn I found in my garden. Damn these zoologists and their closed minds! If it wasn't for their conditioning (education) maybe they could free themselves from their restricted thought patterns and find that unicorn - for the good of humanity!

Scientific research can only work from already discovered principles, otherwise we are just stabbing around blindly in the dark. No sensible scientist is going to start experimenting with magnets in an attempt to produce energy, as millions of experiments show that it is almost certainly impossible. However experiments have shown that nuclear fusion is almost certainly possible - which area should a physicist spend their precious time and money working on? Seems obvious to me.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
You havn't made any claims ,Tell me what your claims are so we can clear this up.


No known laws of physics in any way suggests that a open system can not gain more 'heat' than it's losing to it's local environment.


Could this be because the devices and claims can be proved faulty ,if not ,put your money where your mouth is .


Since i readily admit that a large percentage of these devices do not work , or are clear attempts at fraud, i am obviously admitting that many can be proved faulty. The reason i do not like to vouch for certain devices over other is mainly because i am no engineer and that i don't HAVE to vouch for something if there is nothing in physics that makes it obviously impossible.


My reading is a lot better than your diction,You seem to claim to be taken out of context in any posts you make ,however I actually fail to see a context at all


I was being rather specific and i will let whoever is reading your dribble decide if you do or do not understand context. I would ask that you go back and reconsider what i said but i am confident you are not here to distort and generally insult whoever disagrees with your distorted views of natural laws as we know them.


in your claims due to you not actually having the nous to actually make any clear claims .Having responded to your attempts with sound scientific laws ,you have brought nothing new to the table.


You have only cited one law to which i responded with numerous CLARIFICATIONS and addendum's as to what the law means and how it is normally employed. Since you have not yet responded to any of my counter claims i do not see much reason to make many new claims.


However you are amusing several people here.For that we love you.


And i don't mind standing in the good scientific company that is so commonly misunderstood by lay ignorants such as yourself.


By the way when I said "I wonder where I could find a scientist " you seem to have missed the sarcasm.
/irony


Missing out on some sarcasm is not much as compared to your lack of comprehension on these few simply laws. I would pity you but since your not here to learn or to inform it would be a waste of time.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


thanks for the reply

Ive seen the tesla car its verry cool.
love the fact that they show most of what you see is build out of(hahahaha laptop batteries)
but did you take really look at the topgear watercar vidio, becouse they state that the car can power a few house blocks on salt water!
It needs no electric power other than it makes for itself and has energy to spare
If this is not possible who is telling the lies?? general motors or the topgear crew?
they say the car is a few million quid...
I dont care about the car with high tech stuff, drive left and right side.
I want the motor in my house powering all my stuff.
or a cheaper model that drives for free and forget about the exess power.

this is how it feels to me
(((they made, stole or bought this awwsome technolegy, made it better.
made it better, made it better.. itss allready freaking awwsome but w8 up people we are making it better. I wunna drive my free fuel car now!..
nooo w8 In 50 years we wil have nuclear power plant output in ur sport watch with weels!)))

Soo I ask again look at the video on youtube, let me know who tells lies and why I cant buy the engine.



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
many people also say tesla roadster is somekind of hoax.
you cant believe everything you see on youtube thats for sure.
same goes for tv and other things.
If you buy a can of beans at the supermarket the picture on the can has been photoshopped to make the beans shine more look greener and more tasty.
how old were you when you found out tv sends out millions of scams?
kinds wunna buy a G.I toy cuz it drives around in his truck killing bad guys with his gun that can shoots fire.
they buy the doll. it doesnt move by itself, the car is not included and the gun is a crappy piece o plastic.
they still buy the car and it cant drive by itself.
1 lesson learned
Scams to get money from working people similar, but based more on what we know or dont know allready.
say a few things we know are true with some things we know nothing about.
Its hard for all of us to tell BS from truth these days.
Im not stupid but i believe there are better ways to power a car than oil.
prove me right please



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by wazzup
 


Y ,It uses hydrogen as a fuel,that gets used by the "engine". the fuel cell not water(the byproduct)as fuel.,It doesnt make more energy than is put into it,so is not a "free fuel engine."It is also the old model.

It doesnt make enough electricity to power a town(journalistic licence)tho could power your house quite happily with no local pollution.Still have to make hydrogen to use as a fuel tho somewhere.
The tesla roadster uses l ion batteries ,and is charged via a standard plug socket,you can have a look at one at the showroom.

how is a nuclear powered car a free fuel car?

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
People like you ?

no evidence,no theories to support your idea,no experimentation ,no idea.


Please address the claims in the sources i have so far provided.


Your research seems to consist of random cut and paste of things you seem not to have read .


Please address those 'random' 'cut and paste' 'things' as best you can with not the not so random laws you believe invalidates them.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke
Such a lot of blather, as usual.


I try to be as concise as i know how but everyone comprehends at the speed they do and i can but help them along the way by spending the required time.


You want us the believe that infinite free energy sources are out there for the taking,


They are not just for the taking as there are substantial moneyed interest that stand to lose a great deal of control over the market if such technologies ever become widely acknowledged or used. You are setting up a very basic straw man argument here and if you want to employ logic fallacies at least make them less obvious.


yet you offer us nothing in terms of substantial evidence: no maths, no experiments and no devices.


I have in the past supplied you with what i know about the maths, the various patents and plenty of experiments that validates that these devices exists and work. Since i know that you have seen those lists and never properly responded i find your conduct here quite disingenuous and cowardly.


You seem upset that the "scientific community" won't chase these ephemeral dreams even though you certainly won't, and just like to go on about it endlessly.


The scientific community as a whole do not even understand the dept of the problem and those who do ( many have pointed out the flaws in understanding) don't speak out often and are largely ignored or suppressed. There are a few leaders that sets opinion ( journal editors for instance) and they are the real culprits for suppressing dissenting opinions by not giving them the possibility to present their work.


This is like me getting upset because the zoologists won't investigate the invisible pink unicorn I found in my garden. Damn these zoologists and their closed minds!


Only i have never seen any evidence for pink unicorns; if you have and can present it to me i would obviously look at it.
The evidence for over unity devices are legion with plenty of experiments and as many eyewitnesses.; if a few close minded lay people don't want to listen to those scientist who do work in this area that is obviously their own business.


If it wasn't for their conditioning (education) maybe they could free themselves from their restricted thought patterns and find that unicorn - for the good of humanity!


What good would unicorns do humanity? If you are going to examples can't you at least make them pertinent/interesting?


Scientific research can only work from already discovered principles, otherwise we are just stabbing around blindly in the dark.


Exactly and that is exactly what the scientist who investigate over unity technologies have done.


No sensible scientist is going to start experimenting with magnets in an attempt to produce energy, as millions of experiments show that it is almost certainly impossible.


Which experiments suggest that over unity is impossible?Can you point me to just one? What is ever sensible about attempting to broaden the horizon on some specific frontier knowing that you are going to endanger the careers of many older scientist who have made their living off the current understanding? How is that sensible?


However experiments have shown that nuclear fusion is almost certainly possible - which area should a physicist spend their precious time and money working on? Seems obvious to me.


Nuclear fusion have cost humanity tens of billions of dollars worth of research without delivering even a single watt to global energy grids. For a small fraction of that money EVERY SINGLE fraudster in the over unity field can be exposed and brought up on charges of defrauding the state of tax payers funds; i will help with the nooses if that satisfies your curiosity as to my feelings about the actions of some individuals in this field.

As always you love circles and plainly intend to keep going round and round. Since we have done this at least a few times in the past i suggest you go continue all the other threads you stopped responding to after i started posting the type of data you have apparently tried to wish out of existence.

For people such as yourself i have few words and non i can mention here.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 10 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

"If you can point out to me which 'laws' of physics invalidates the notion of over-unity i will be more than happy to invest my efforts in a more fruitful area of research."
Here you go ,dont read them all at onceen.wikipedia.org...



"I would pity you but since your not here to learn or to inform it would be a waste of time. "

hee hee ,dont waste your pity on me,lol I feel exactly the same about you ..Carry on ignoring those with science backgrounds,those that DO experiment ,and do maths .and believe your impossible dream lol.

,bye bye.

E=mc 2

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]

[edit on 10-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
Here you go ,dont read them all at onceen.wikipedia.org...


from the source in question and i will just dig into the summary to show why this field is badly misrepresented by scientist in the popular media.


The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. 1: However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. 2: Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed, and is therefore impossible. 3The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion while inevitably losing energy to friction and air resistance.

en.wikipedia.org...


1: A closed system can exchange energy with it's environment so it's isolated and thus not subject to conservation of energy on the local scale we are referring to. Not being able to make the distinction between local or larger systems and the fact that they are ALL open systems , especially in the natural world, is the lie/misunderstanding that enables the misrepresentation of over-unit research.


* Isolated systems are completely isolated in every way from their environment. They do not exchange heat, work or matter with their environment. An example of an isolated system would be an insulated rigid container, such as an insulated gas cylinder.

* Closed systems are able to exchange energy (heat and work) but not matter with their environment. A greenhouse is an example of a closed system exchanging heat but not work with its environment. Whether a system exchanges heat, work or both is usually thought of as a property of its boundary.

* Open systems: exchanging energy (heat and work) and matter with their environment. A boundary allowing matter exchange is called permeable. The ocean would be an example of an open system.

en.wikipedia.org...


2: We can not prove that energy is not being created or destroyed by some unknown process at either the local or universal scale unless we are dealing with isolated systems. Since we are not aware of any isolated systems in the natural world and cant, as far as i know, create them in the lab energy conservation is probably true ( in my opinion as well) but not something we can prove with the clarity presumed by many lay people or even scientist.


In reality, a system can never be absolutely isolated from its environment, because there is always at least some slight coupling, even if only via minimal gravitational attraction. In analyzing a system in steady-state, the energy into the system is equal to the energy leaving the system [1].

en.wikipedia.org...


3: Presuming that such a mechanical system is in fact isolated and is not receiving some form of energy from it's environment as cleverly furnished by applying our best understanding of physics. With respect to the Earth as system Solar panels are over unity machines freely receiving energy from the larger system; unless clarifications are made as to the scale and nature of the system being investigated all claims about conservation of energy being 'violated' is largely empty and can not be used as evidence against over-unity.


hee hee ,dont waste your pity on me,lol I feel exactly the same about you ..


All i can do is pity those who so diligently repeats what they heard without investigation. Your clearly a good little soldier and it sucks that people like you are so well rewarded for towing the line , doing what your told and believing what is most profitable.


Carry on ignoring those with science backgrounds,those that DO experiment ,


I have a scientific background as well and i think mine is a bit more comprehensive given the volume of information i have worked trough in my life. I am not ignoring people with scientific background and as you can see i in fact love to quote them and explain why you are misrepresenting what we know to defend presumptions and misinformation as presented by those who live well off the current energy monopolies.


and do maths .and believe your impossible dream lol.

,bye bye.

E=mc 2


Maths i can do too but frankly we don't have much reason to yet given all the wonderful math that has been done by so many brilliant minds over the centuries. All we have to do is interpret the knowledge and make sense of the summaries they have all presented for our inspection. As for the E=MC2 that goes a long way towards showing how much energy is contained in matter and it's thus striking that while we believe in high energy Fusion ( liberating energy that was always there) so many despise LENR and over unity systems that may very well be liberating energy in similar fashion. The only impediment to such presumption is if we can naturally take a system to be isolated and since we can't there is absolutely no reason NOT to talk about over unity investigation.

I can understand why some people still believe that it sounds to good to be true , and it in fact might not be practically true, but i can't stand for the ignorant arguments that is must be 'impossible' based on misrepresentations of theories and laws.

Stellar



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I couldn't refuse, I had to reply.
Well, as with most overunity engines there is a reason why they are dubed "Scams" because people can't fathom how they work. Since the early 1900's and before, anything that defies current logic is seen as "crazy, witchcraft, or has a hidden battery."
Take the Rod Generator. Many have been created, some have been acutally seen working and still people think there is a battery inside.
One man had created a rod generator and drove around New York for a day with his car using its power. Another ran his entire ranch with another Rod Generator, but was ordered by a court to destroy it because the power company thought it was stealing their power.
I have researched even Teslas ray collector, which was thought to be just a solar array, but in fact collects many different types of rays and when a cap is added to it, you can collect energy and then refer it to a battery for use.
I guess check out overunity.com and see what they say. Now a few in germany have also created an overunity machine that puts out a lot of energy.
So, as far as the Creative Science and Research, I would be willing to spend $40 bucks and see what the plans say, then if they work I would post them all over the internet. If they didn't I would sue and turn my $40 bucks into a million for their fake machine. So you can't lose. Buy it and see if you can make it work, if not sue and make a million. You win either way.
If you sue, they have to prove to a court that their machine works or they lose. Who is a better skeptic than a court filled with people.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   
how would the work be moved from a closed sys to a open sys where it is needed by us?


[edit on 17-7-2008 by gambon]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
how would the work be moved from a closed sys to a open sys where it is needed by us?


In making the first point (1-3) I managed to say closed instead of isolated ( not that the distinction is easily made any ways) but noticed too late to enable editing. As for the work from a isolated system that would be impossible as a theoretically isolated system can not exchange energy with other systems.

What i am trying to explain is that while the universe may be a isolated system ( i don't think there is much evidence either way) your car battery/generator/solar panel isn't and what the legitimate devices would be trying to do is to tap into surrounding systems to enable a flow of energy from the local environment towards powering a load of your choice. Since i am so very broad minded i don't even require you to believe that over unity technologies exists today but what i have a real hard time with is blanket denials of even the possibility when there are just no known laws to support such claims.

In nuclear fission we liberate 'stored'/compressed energy, when we burn wood, use solar panels or employ fossil fuels we basically do the same thing the only difference being that in the more interesting over unity research it's claimed that they are tapping into the quantum realm. In the quantum realm virtual particles are known to spring into existence for very brief periods of time before disappearing again ( scienceworld.wolfram.com... ) and while it's claimed that this is due to the uncertainty principle it in the end just raises ever more questions.

Basically every over unity researched that bothers you with theories about him having 'broken laws' should just be dismissed for now ( there are so many you can just as well focus on those who don't make such broad claims) as most laws are in time greatly refined, made redundant or are simply later understood to be completely irrelevant to what it may have been used to describe.

I hope i managed to clarify my point of view?

Stellar

[edit on 18-7-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
This Magnetic generator really does work. This idiot has no ideal how to make it properly. It's just a bit more complicated and can be found in operation on youtube.com .... I'm an engineer and I can tell you if it is bs or not. This is real people. In college our professors told us about a device that could run your meter backwards but would not tell us how it was done. The meter of course could never do such a thing but later I discovered what they meant by that statement. In college we are taught electron flow not magnetic waves, thus giving us no knowledge of magnetic principals except those related to generators that produce electricity from a gas engine etc.. I discovered that if you want to know more about advanced systems you goto work for the government and then only do you get to know about stuff we are never told in college or high school. If you recall the government thought Tesla was a fool until after his death did they realize he had some awesome stuff that we use today that is still classified. The government took all of Tesla's notes, kept what would become secret and only gave our libraries what they thought was not too important. Don't believe me? Do a little searching and you may freak a little. How about a pod that spins at high speed and when pointed over a battle field makes everyone vomit. Still not enough to make you think.. I feel for the people who have lost knowledge, for they will suffer in the end. I don't have to pay for electric anymore.. Gee, I wonder how that was done? The world may never know.. Perhaps I'll go crazy listening to your conversations, perhaps not....



There are many plans available related to free energy, and then it becomes a matter of which ones people wish to try out, what is likely to work. I got an instant feeling you were telling the truth, and that you are living off the grid so to speak now. But are you endorsing this particular website with these designs then?



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
www.youtube.com...

Say no more? "Gods not eggs is ting.""


Buy up the Sodom and Gomorrah and Dead Sea salt fields now
before its too late.

RF generators in cars won't be allowed by the FCC who already
took out the Tesla ignition coil.

A working fluid is needed.
But the mechanical advantage of the endless water wheel
is the electric water pump and generator, well perhaps the
ether in the water too because the "why don't you use a belt"
question was answered with "it didn't work that way".

RF + salt + water = flame

pump + water + generator = endless electricity



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Creative Science and Research sells plans that have questionable results.
A fuelless heater worked on a motor heating up oil.
That as bad as a fly trap that consists of a box and a lid.
Google the name and see the buyers reviews.

If any thing works here it may be from Tesla's gaseous ether.
So for one thing gases help.
You get closer to the ether.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo Christian Mystic
www.youtube.com...

Say no more? "Gods not eggs is ting.""


What is so incredible is that a news station is reporting this along with interviewing an excited researcher. A possible way to combat cancer, especially in areas where surgery is impossible, along with running a car on salt water technology that works. Now this is something that can't be allowed to simply disappear. Most inventors are bought out. If that doesn't work then they or a family meet with an accident. The only way something can actually help transform our world, is if scientists follow and open source patenting, a people's patent, not worrying if others will be their competition for devices. And the greatest safety is in disclosing the information quickly to large groups of people.



posted on Jul, 18 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
If it really works, then why are they selling plans instead of working models?

Let me tell you why:

Because if you buy the plans and build a device, and it doesn’t work, they can just tell you you screwed up and it isn’t their problem.



It’s kind of like HouseholdHacker. Have you ever heard of the guy? He makes YouTube / Metacafe videos showing ridiculous things, like using an onion to charge an iPod, building a “hi-def” (?) speaker from a penny and a pie plate, and building a cell phone interceptor from a TV remote and a popcorn bowl.
They don’t work, and anybody with an education or a bit of common sense can tell you that.
Of course there are plenty of other idiots who can’t figure it out, and try to do these things for themselves. And of course they don’t work. And then HouseholdHacker’s fans get literally days of amusement out of telling these poor idiots that they’ve done something wrong and that they can get it to work if only they tweak this or that.…

[edit on 24-12-2007 by MurderSmurf]




By the way, though I have no idea whether these plans from this particular website work, the idea of selling plans rather than the actual device is the most grass-roots, worthy way of developing, (and I guess in some way testing
) devices. Waiting for enough coorporate interests to buy out 60% more of the shares, and then fund and massively control the device (ie. you will see it when hell freezes over), or eventually it comes out in a massively over-priced item (if we're not all some small micro-chipped slave group by then who won't care a rats ass about anything techno) is not the way I would go. If certain devices show practical working abilities to even reduce the energy consumption by a worthy degree, then please, open-source the patent, and sell the plans to anyone and everyone.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join