It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by grahag
however, over the lifetime of the panel, you will receive MANY times more energy than you put into it.
Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Doglord
Only one more post on this subject of the scientific method, and that will be it for me. You may think that I am just writing in order to write, but I am not. I have all along been trying to get you to discuss this matter on a deeper, more philosophical level, much like advanced thinkers would do, but I can see that you are content with promulgating a more sterile view of things.
The fact is, there have been MANY scientific methods and ideas for nearly 1000 years, but according to you, that is neither here nor there.
As one final note regarding all this, I quote a portion from the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject:
Originally posted by downisreallyup
I am thinking and talking at a much deeper and more philosophical level than you are, for you are merely quoting what anyone can look up on Wikipedia.
Originally posted by dereks
now it is running on a battery! so we have a free energy machine that runs on a battery....
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by grahag
however, over the lifetime of the panel, you will receive MANY times more energy than you put into it.
So you think if you make a solar panel, then keep it in a cupboard it will work and eventually put out more energy than it took to make it....?
Originally posted by andrewh7
, the fact that it uses a battery is irrelevant. If it is producing more energy then it is using then, then the battery is being used to start and maintain the reaction and being continuously recharged by it. You need a match to start a fire.
What would be the point of "free energy" if you did not use something to store that energy?
If your battery dies for good while you're driving, the engine will stall because it needs the battery to maintain the reaction.
Originally posted by andrewh7
Originally posted by dereks
now it is running on a battery! so we have a free energy machine that runs on a battery....
If it is producing more energy then it is using then, then the battery is being used to start and maintain the reaction and being continuously recharged by it. You need a match to start a fire.
"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all the time...and that is plenty good odds. My Pappy used to say that."
... Bart Maverick
Of course gravity is what keep the water in the trough of channel or whatever you want to call it. But Hydroelectric dams work because of water, not because of gravity. If you take away the water you have no hydroelectric damn. It is the force of the water that causes the turbines to turn. That is why when you look at a hydroelectric damn the water is backed up on one side of damn in order to maintain a constant output.
What I'm saying is that the force of gravity has nothing to do with why Hydroelectric dams work. When I point out that we don't have a devices that uses gravity to produce energy that is exactly what it mean, we don't have a device that works off of gravity.
So no Hydroelectric dams do not work off of gravity, gravity is a force that exerts itself upon everything on earth, there is not one motor that works off of gravity itself and alone.
Originally posted by Doglord
Originally posted by downisreallyup
reply to post by Doglord
Only one more post on this subject of the scientific method, and that will be it for me. You may think that I am just writing in order to write, but I am not. I have all along been trying to get you to discuss this matter on a deeper, more philosophical level, much like advanced thinkers would do, but I can see that you are content with promulgating a more sterile view of things.
Ahh of course, I just haven't been as "advanced" or thought as "deeply"as you have. Well you're right in a way because I couldn't possibly wade as "deeply" into a river of self-indulgent #e as you do without a mighty good pair of hip-waders, and I simply don't have available at the moment.
The fact is, there have been MANY scientific methods and ideas for nearly 1000 years, but according to you, that is neither here nor there.
No, there's pretty much been the one.
As one final note regarding all this, I quote a portion from the excellent Wikipedia article on the subject:
Hmm didn't you mention something about wiki?
Originally posted by downisreallyup
I am thinking and talking at a much deeper and more philosophical level than you are, for you are merely quoting what anyone can look up on Wikipedia.
Ahh So in other words you are thinking too deeply to need or use wikipedia, except when you use wikipedia.
Downisreallyup = writes a lot, says little.
Originally posted by Freezer
reply to post by rickyrrr
Well, the way I think the Bedini motor works, is utilizing radiant energy, which some call the zero point, and many other names. Bedini has said that current kills radiant, so when you push current through, the radiant is gone. So the monopole uses pulses, or high voltage spikes, and in between the radiant appears. I think this is why that guy who first threw the switch for tesla's generator was fried. Before the current came, there was the radiant. I think it was at that moment tesla realized what he had.
As far as harnessing the schumann resonance, I'm not sure. Look at this link. We don't always need something huge. Boyd Bushman alluded to something like this, which he said acts like a virtual lens.
amasci.com...
Originally posted by audas
There is nothing more puerile than insulting the intellect as a baseless cause in itself - it merely illuminates your own feckless demeanor. It is so obvious that someone hasn't a clue when they resort to such a base accusation - profoundly self deprecating.
Further it is actually YOU who is masturbating - you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. A cursory reading of science history will quickly tell you this, and to anyone who actually knows what they are talking about - you just look incredibly foolish.
You are fundamentally wrong - you need to do some reading - it is blatantly apparent that you are not well read - perhaps it is time you took stock of yourself and realized that your not as "informed" as you think you are - I can assure you you barely rate above zero to many of the 100 percenters around here - and your rhetoric is humiliating totally - not that you would be aware of that.
But of course - you probably don't care about being humiliated - you dont even have the self respect to appreciate intellect.