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.

 

The Steorn magnetic motor replication by JL Naudin

page: 14
46
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic

Yes I think I could think more seriously about it. As I stated above I'm not sure if I want to be on YouTube testing a "fringe" device that doesn't do the job. The report has my name and qualifications on it.

Thus far, I have not stated that I have made an over-unity device. I have never uploaded a video to youtube. Check my record.

The reason is that I will not be lumped into the same category with charlatans. I understand the processes involved, and should I ever make such a statement, rest assured that it will be the real thing. It will be provable and replicable. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

I will not state that I will not use youtube as a media outlet to attract attention. I will state that anything I do in such a vein will be, as I stated above, provable and replicable.


I charge GBP 440 per day + expenses, plus VAT @17.5% in the EU.

A hefty price tag, but apt if your qualifications are what you claim (and I make no implications here; only an apt disclaimer due to the inherent anonymity of the Internet). I am now very glad you would wave such a fee if the device is indeed over-unity.



The offer was mainly to Major Disaster, I cannot spare the time to be doing too many of these jobs due to commitments.

I understand this concern. However, I need a better answer, as I may indeed have a later need for such services myself. If I should contact you someday for such an endeavor under the terms specified in this thread, would you be predisposed to accommodate providing we can agree on a mutually acceptable time fame?

TheRedneck




posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

I am one.

You are published?


Impressive.


So what say you to a similar question I just asked LightFantastic?

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So what say you to a similar question I just asked LightFantastic?


I'm not quite sure what you were asking -- consulting of sorts? I don't have a problem with that. Looks like you are pretty proficient with basic instruments and can measure all that stuff yourself.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorDisaster

Building and/or testing any device which is published is no problem. No NDA s needed, as I explained above. I have actually been studying the Bedini design the last few days and I do believe I understand the basics of operation now. I cannot state with any real certainty that it either works or doesn't work, however. Magnetism is poorly understood even today, and magnetic calculations are still approximations of reality at best.


Just, whatever happens, I'd kind of like it to happen quickly, please!!!! if you hear what I'm saying!

As far as the ATS-based testing goes, it is pretty much out of my hands now. I have stated my support and position to the rest of the staff. I will say I am also anxious to see if an agreement can be reached.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Airplanes threatened shipping business. Radio threatened telegraph. Smokeless powder threatened purveyors of sulfur etc. Fission of uranium nuclei could have been "ridiculed", except it wasn't -- the science community follows facts and experiments. It only ridicules those who believe in snake oil and tabletop contraption that purport to violate a certain law that has been verified 1000000000 times in much more rigorous circumstances.


Precisely!

The scientific community believes so strongly that Overunity is impossible - that it ridicules, ostracizes and shuns anyone who claims to achieve it!

Straight out of your own mouth (fingers)



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem

Thank you! That is indeed a compliment.

No invention that is verified only by the inventor can be trusted. Outside independent verification will be required. And I tend to trust your judgment and expertise as well.

I should state here that everything I have mentioned in the arena of independent testing of my projects is still merely a possible future occurrence. It's just nice to be prepared.


TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
The scientific community believes so strongly that Overunity is impossible - that it ridicules, ostracizes and shuns anyone who claims to achieve it!

Straight out of your own mouth


Yes. It's not unlike doctors who would ridicule a charlatan who promises that half a pound of salt and half a pound of sugar consumed daily will cure your baldness and make you smart. By the way, you could try that.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Grey Magic
 


Free energy exist : it is the human energy : the goal is to free this energy.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes. It's not unlike doctors who would ridicule a charlatan who promises that half a pound of salt and half a pound of sugar consumed daily will cure your baldness and make you smart. By the way, you could try that.


I won't take that as an insult, buddhasystem - since I'm not bald!


My only point is that there's a tremendous amount of fear, ridicule and almost religious-like persecution to be overcome here, if these technologies are ever going to make it to market.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Overall, I don't think the problem with acceptance of over-unity is as much related to the violation of accepted physical laws as much as it is a result of charlatans and the simply uninformed trying to defend indefensible positions en masse. Science is (or at least should be) used to having traditional thinking challenged.

But when there is a pattern of devices being presented which 'work' only in the sense that they bring the 'inventor' fame and financial windfalls, a certain amount of skepticism tends to build up among those who understand the physics. This is not a new thing; Einstein overwrote Newton's Laws of Motion with Relativity, and received quite a bit of skepticism as a result. Only after an experiment was conceived and executed to provide evidence that Relativity was correct did he gain any wide-spread acceptance for his theories.

That is proper; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In the case of relativity, extraordinary proof was forthcoming. In the case of over-unity, however, it has not been such.

I recently did some perusing of youtube's vast library of over-unity and free-energy demonstrations. I saw plenty of strange-looking devices, but nothing that showed the extraordinary proof that I will need to state that it works as described. The closest I saw was the one I posted, which was pointed out to be full of possibilities for fraud. I may still build one simply to satisfy myself that it does or does not work.

So one should expect the idea of over-unity to be challenged thoroughly, even viciously, given the long history of failures being promoted as successes.

That is not to make the statement that such a device is impossible; even buddhasystem will have to agree with me that it is nigh-impossible to prove a negative in science. It is to say that there is a tremendous amount of skepticism to be overcome. Some of that skepticism is proper, as would be proper with any challenge to accepted physical law, and the rest can be attributed to the plethora of those who would try to make a fraudulent profit by tricking others with, as buddhasystem so eloquently puts it, "snake oil".

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Thus far, I have not stated that I have made an over-unity device. I have never uploaded a video to youtube. Check my record.

I understand this concern. However, I need a better answer, as I may indeed have a later need for such services myself. If I should contact you someday for such an endeavor under the terms specified in this thread, would you be predisposed to accommodate providing we can agree on a mutually acceptable time fame?

TheRedneck


I don't know if you misunderstood me or if I am misunderstanding you but I didn't think you had made an over-unity device.

Yes I would be prepared to produce a report for you if you have faith in any particular device. Please bear in mind that I am in the UK but I could probably put you in touch with someone more local to yourself. Like bhudda said before, I think you are capable of taking the correct measurements yourself before investing in a professional analysis.



[edit on 7/1/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
but to pose an "overunity challenge" to the inventors who claim to already have something that's overunity. Bedini, Bearden, Lindemann, Kapanadze, Steorn, Keppe, etc etc.


There is already such a challenge, with a $1million prize



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LightFantastic

The fact that I can make the analysis myself is why I picked upon the offer. I wouldn't put forward any device I had not personally verified. And with all due respect, I believe my analysis could be more rigorous than yours.


And no, we didn't misunderstand each other. I was simply emphasizing the fact that I am not in the habit of promoting things that don't work as advertised.


I'll keep you in mind, my friend. And just so I don't forget, I'm clicking the friend button.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks
There is already such a challenge, with a $1million prize


dereks

Please show us some evidence that Bedini or these other inventors I've mentioned have approached Randi for that challenge, or that he has approached them.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Einstein overwrote Newton's Laws of Motion with Relativity, and received quite a bit of skepticism as a result.


I hope you understand the vast difference between physics and charlatan stuff being peddled here, in the following sense:

a) Einstein proposed a set of equations based on a certain postulate. Over he years, it was possible to design experiments to test these equations, by proper understanding of these

b) Bedini and the gang don't provide any theory to speak of. There is not an equation to demonstrate how "dark energy" is passing through copper wires and then is mysteriously stored in a chemical device (battery). It really is similar to the cure for stupidity that I jokingly proposed in my previous post.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Please show us some evidence that Bedini or these other inventors I've mentioned have approached Randi for that challenge, or that he has approached them.


What are you on about? Why should the JREF approach every snake oil salesman? The challenge is real, the money is in the bank ready to be given away, all they have to do is show their device is overunity and they get the money. It is that simple.

So why havent they won the money? - because their devices do not work like they claim, and no amount of bull# from their true believers will hide that fact. $1million to be one easily, all that they have to do is demonstrate their devices and show that they are overunity and the money is theirs....



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
b) Bedini and the gang don't provide any theory to speak of. There is not an equation to demonstrate how "dark energy" is passing through copper wires and then is mysteriously stored in a chemical device (battery). It really is similar to the cure for stupidity that I jokingly proposed in my previous post.


Actually, Bearden has gone into great detail about the physics involved. He quotes the work of Maxwell, Heaviside, Wheeler, Lee and Yang, Wu, the Aharanov-Bohm affect, etc etc.

Your post shows me that you haven't really researched Bearden and Bedini at all.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
Actually, Bearden has gone into great detail about the physics involved. He quotes the work of Maxwell, Heaviside, Wheeler, Lee and Yang, Wu, the Aharanov-Bohm affect, etc etc.


a sign of a charlatan, appeal to authority. and still he refuses to have them properly tested!



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Maybe they don't trust Randi.

Maybe they did approach him but couldn't work out an official contract. Maybe Randi wanted to dictate the rules of the challenge but Bedini wanted to dictate his own rules. (Bedini prefers open-loop systems instead of closed-loops systems and that's a problem for a lot of people.)

Who knows?

You don't seem to have any evidence either way, dereks, so with all due respect, please shut up about it already.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
please shut up about it already.


of course you want me to shut up - you know the devices do not work like they claim, and hate it being pointed out to you!



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join