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.
In reiteration, another Thomson—J.J. Thomson—had claimed to have mathematically developed the theory of moving tubes of force (Phil. Mag, xxxi [1891], p. 149). For his Recent Researches in Electricity and Magnetism (1893, p. 13), his hypothesis was the “the aether is a storehouse of mechanical momentum”,
Originally posted by spikey
I have to say, it actually was pretty much NOTHING like i was expecting.
If i was to say i felt a little deflated, i'd be doing how i feel an injustice.
I brought this 'demonstration' of proof of Orbo's OU to your attention, expecting something...definitive. A little more than a fuzzy trace on a scope, anyway. So, to all of you who, like me, thought we'd be seeing something in the way of absolute proof regarding this technology, i can only apologise for keying you up, or raising your hopes, only to ultimately frustrate you with lack of clarity. Sorry.
I understand they are being cagey about their device and it's effect due to commercial considerations, but surely something more should have been done today..something more tangible.
As they have said, this is not being aimed at the general public, but developers to reorganise and restructure into a viable commercial product that will then be available to the public.
Apparently, companies are waiting in line to take a stab at development.
Does this mean that Orbo does or doesn't work as advertised?
My position is that we now know nothing more than we did a few days ago.
You may have noticed a glimmer of light amongst the dark though, as you heard from the horses mouth, that until the end of the month, ANYONE can go along to their office, bring your own test gear (meters, scopes and so on) and play with one of the Orbo's...which is a remarkable offer, if they are indeed pulling a fraud..
I'm still undecided, but disappointed.
Thanks to most of you for your constructive contributions to this thread.
Originally posted by alttracks
reply to post by LiquidLight
I agree with you. Unless there is superconduction, there are always eddy current losses, heat loss due to friction, etc. And superconduction has to deal with it's own losses.
Who keeps bringing this thread back to life?
Originally posted by above
Ok, watched it and i am sorry to say that we the skeptics were correct. The demonstration did not prove anything.
The conclusion was basically "we get out 1/3rd of the energy we put in, plus work so that the conlusion is 108% efficiency". You must have faith since there is no way of measuring the work done by the rotor.
99,9% debunked, fake, hoax, call it what you wish. I seriously doubt anything will come out of this. If something comes, they did a really really terrible job in proving it.
I wouldn't call it debunked quite yet, but I agree that their little demonstration proved nothing. I'll wait for some independent analysis before making a conclusion.
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Originally posted by alttracks
reply to post by LiquidLight
I agree with you. Unless there is superconduction, there are always eddy current losses, heat loss due to friction, etc. And superconduction has to deal with it's own losses.
Who keeps bringing this thread back to life?
We all question their motives.
People want to know.
The ET has a probability of existence as much as free energy.
Except free energy does exist and the ET does not.