Turkish Inventor Ready to License Free Energy Motors and Generators for Production

page: 12
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And some people don't seem to be following Bedini's advice to start with completely discharged batteries for their test as you suggested they need to for accurate results. And they certainly don't seem to be measuring the total stored power in all of the batteries in controlled trials.


If people don't follow all the instructions properly and do the testing properly, well that's their own fault isn't it? You can hardly blame Bedini for that.




There is no evidence these folks know how to measure all the variables involved or make controlled experiments like a certified testing lab would.


Some do, some don't, I'm sure.




Are you talking about that examiner.com article you posted? I did read that and it doesn't really prove anything. wmd_2008 is right, 300 people replicating the motor doesn't mean any of them are over unity. Exactly zero people have proven that claim.


And around and around we go!


You already said in this thread that a large sample of people, like 300 people, reporting a positive result would be considered sufficient evidence. Now you're saying it's not. You just contradicted yourself.

The fact is, hundreds of people reporting a positive result DOES count as evidence. You already said it does.




Is Friedrich the guy who's getting a substantial share of the profits from selling maybe $100 worth of components for $4000?


The $4000 is for the 10-coil unit, there are a lot more parts in that unit and they cost a lot more than $100 I'm sure.




We should take his "unbiased" word for it? For the umpteenth time, we need an independent lab to verify,


And which highly credible independent lab can be trusted to risk their precious credibility and tell the whole world the truth if they DO get positive results? Which labs are guaranteed to not chicken out? If I have one of these 10-coil units tested by the lab you recommended, can you personally guarantee that they will tell the entire world the truth and not chicken out? (And yes I have the money to do it, and yes I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.......)

If I put in the stipulation that the entire testing process from start to finish must be FILMED so it is 100% transparent, and copies of all the footage given to me, will your lab still go for it, or will they chicken out and run away like others have done.........?




So basically he's saying "if you are looking for proof this thing works, don't ask me, I took mine apart so I don't have to show it to anybody and I don't need to prove it". And this is the guy you're saying can prove it? He says he can't/won't.

"I do not believe it is necessary to prove to anyone else."??? What? And he has a source of free energy but he's not going to leave it hooked up so he can use it? Even a gullible person has to smell that this stinks.

I hate to hurl ad-hominems against someone I don't even know, but what kind of moron thinks there's no need to prove a free energy machine, especially when he's the guy you send us to for proof?



I think you seriously underestimate what these guys have gone through in trying to "prove" the technology. All the faux scepticism, arguments and accusations, debunking/discrediting, harassment, backstabbing, threats of violence etc etc.

But I know you'll just dismiss all that and say that proving it should be easy. So anyway. Look, he's still given us all the data, he's given us schematics and videos, he says everything necessary to prove it is there. So why don't YOU try building one and see if it works? If proving it is supposed to be so simple, why don't YOU prove it?




posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
You already said in this thread that a large sample of people, like 300 people, reporting a positive result would be considered sufficient evidence. Now you're saying it's not. You just contradicted yourself.

The fact is, hundreds of people reporting a positive result DOES count as evidence. You already said it does.


...under controlled conditions, confirmed by several independent parties. What you have now is similar to 300 people saying they hear a difference between a Bellini DVD player and a regular one.

So we first need to agree upon which experimental results would prove the claims. In case of the DVD these experimental results are someone making the correct pick over and over in a double blind listening test under supervision by an independent party. In case of a Bellini generator this could be someone letting his device power a certain load for a certain time period, without switching the batteries, while again under supervision of an independent party.

Until then, it is all hearsay.



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So we first need to agree upon which experimental results would prove the claims. In case of the DVD these experimental results are someone making the correct pick over and over in a double blind listening test under supervision by an independent party. In case of a Bellini generator this could be someone letting his device power a certain load for a certain time period, without switching the batteries, while again under supervision of an independent party.

Until then, it is all hearsay.


Ultimate Energy Showdown

I also heard through the grapevine that this is almost exactly what MajorDummy was trying to negotiate with ATS back in January. Great minds think alike, I guess?



posted on Jun, 29 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
You already said in this thread that a large sample of people, like 300 people, reporting a positive result would be considered sufficient evidence. Now you're saying it's not. You just contradicted yourself.


I never said that. You misinterpreted what I said about listening to 300 CDs or DVDs in a controlled experiment. And even you agreed that a lot of those 300 people probably aren't experts in measuring efficiency.


And which highly credible independent lab can be trusted to risk their precious credibility and tell the whole world the truth if they DO get positive results? Which labs are guaranteed to not chicken out? If I have one of these 10-coil units tested by the lab you recommended, can you personally guarantee that they will tell the entire world the truth and not chicken out? (And yes I have the money to do it, and yes I am willing to put my money where my mouth is.......)


I'm not trying to violate the T&C by promoting any particular lab. The only affiliation I have with this lab is that I have sent testing business to them before, and people's lives depended on getting accurate results, since they are testing for electrical safety among other things.

www.intertek.com...

You would need to do a little more than just send them the device and ask them if it's over unity or not. They have standard tests like the "Energy Star" test, but you'd be looking for something a little different. So you'd have to call them up and discuss the testing parameters.

You would also need to discuss this "telling the world" thing with them. Normally they sign non-disclosure agreements with manufacturers when they are testing product prototypes or first production samples, and provide the test results initially only to the manufacturer. You would need to be sure that you would have their permission to publicize their results should you choose to do so. I never tried to do that, but I assume they have restrictions on how you can use their lab report, though those may be negotiable. One such restriction I think they have, is that you can't reproduce a partial report from them, you have to reproduce it in its entirety to ensure that nothing is taken out of context. One thing they would want to avoid for example is any misrepresentation of their test results which could be affiliated with misleading advertising which could harm their reputation.

Energy Efficiency Testing


Intertek is the preferred energy efficiency testing and certification partner of government authorities, industry associations and manufacturers.

We maintain the accreditations, expertise and state-of-the-art testing laboratories around the world to help you meet energy efficiency requirements for global markets.

Global manufacturers, at the request of consumers and in order to meet industry and government regulations, are making energy efficiency a priority. Improving energy performance, developing clean and sustainable energy, and protecting the environment are key initiatives that all manufacturers must undertake if they wish to compete in today’s socially-conscious markets.


They get paid a testing fee and collect it no matter the result of the test so they have no reason to have any bias other than to publish accurate results, and collect their pre-arranged testing fee.


If I put in the stipulation that the entire testing process from start to finish must be FILMED so it is 100% transparent, and copies of all the footage given to me, will your lab still go for it, or will they chicken out and run away like others have done.........?


I don't know, you'd have to ask them. They run a business so if you ask them to do something extra they might do it for an extra charge. They don't work for free.


So why don't YOU try building one and see if it works? If proving it is supposed to be so simple, why don't YOU prove it?


I never said it was simple, in fact I kept saying the opposite, that most people probably don't know how to conduct a controlled enough test to eliminate all the variables to get accurate test results.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 



Hello there,

would you care to build the "slinky perpetual machine" documented here?
www.lhup.edu...

Methinks it has a lot of potential.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
would you care to build the "slinky perpetual machine" documented here?
www.lhup.edu...

Methinks it has a lot of potential.
There are a number of rotating perpetual motion machines on that link.

Here's one someone actually built, and he even encased it in glass so you can clearly see there's no external power source! It looks like the balls do all the work.

www.marcdatabase.com...




The problem with this design is, you have to be clever to hide the batteries! And it looks like it would be very hard to replace them!

In Bedini's design on the other hand, you don't even have to hide the batteries, he included them in the schematic! Talk about hiding something in plain sight!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The problem with this design is, you have to be clever to hide the batteries! And it looks like it would be very hard to replace them!

In Bedini's design on the other hand, you don't even have to hide the batteries, he included them in the schematic! Talk about hiding something in plain sight!



That's right, batteries are an excellent source of energy, because they make the device totally portable.


So in the not-so-distant future, people will be able to roam the post-apocalyptic wasteland with their Energizers, charging up peoples' batteries at will. Like the wandering Energy Man. Supplying people and towns with the energy they need to survive.

Kind of beautiful actually, when you think about it.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
12 pages of debate? It really cannot be this hard?

It is easier than cake to really test if this is over unity. The fact it is not been done is proof that it is not over unity.

[edit on 7/1/2010 by above]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by above

It is easier than cake to really test if this is over unity. The fact it is not been done is proof that it is not over unity.



It has been done, by lots of people. But we are told their opinion doesn't count, it's not true until some NASA or MIT or Stanford people say it's true, something like that. The bar can always be raised higher can't it?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

It has been done, by lots of people. But we are told their opinion doesn't count, it's not true until some NASA or MIT or Stanford people say it's true, something like that. The bar can always be raised higher can't it?


But never by any independent party that has the knowhow how to actually perform the test. Are there any reports of someone who let the machine run for more than several months continuously without an external power supply?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
But never by any independent party that has the knowhow how to actually perform the test.


You are assuming that no one in the "free energy" camp knows how to test things properly, and I really don't think that's so. At least some of them are qualified engineers and physicists and inventors.

You're an independent party, you don't want to believe them, why not test it for yourself?




Are there any reports of someone who let the machine run for more than several months continuously without an external power supply?


There was the Bedini SG Self-Runner which was already linked to. If you want something that runs a very long time as proof, you could try building and testing that unit.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee
You are assuming that no one in the "free energy" camp knows how to test things properly, and I really don't think that's so. At least some of them are qualified engineers and physicists and inventors.

You're an independent party, you don't want to believe them, why not test it for yourself?


It is not about believe, it is about test results, and the reproduction of them. Show me a test report with results that show over unity. And then show me at least one independent and credible sources that reproduced that exact same test with similar results.


There was the Bedini SG Self-Runner which was already linked to. If you want something that runs a very long time as proof, you could try building and testing that unit.


No I will let people that are making the claims do the testing. And then I will wait for the people making those claims having their results reproduced by an independent party. If they pay me I am willing to do the test, although I would recommend them to find someone with more expertise and credibility.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
It is not about believe, it is about test results, and the reproduction of them. Show me a test report with results that show over unity. And then show me at least one independent and credible sources that reproduced that exact same test with similar results.


For the Turkish inventor? Or in general?

What you're asking for is already at peswiki.com for the case of the Bedini SG and self-runner. They already have the replication information posted. Though I hate to keep going back to that since that's not the actual topic of the thread.



No I will let people that are making the claims do the testing.


But the people making the claims are not believed, their tests are not believed.

You don't believe it, so test it yourself. The schematics are already widely available.




And then I will wait for the people making those claims having their results reproduced by an independent party. If they pay me I am willing to do the test, although I would recommend them to find someone with more expertise and credibility.


And then the independent parties are not believed. They are accused of not knowing how to measure things properly or how to conduct proper tests.

You don't believe it yet, so test it yourself. Seeing is believing. Forget about other peoples' opinions, whether it's someone from MIT or some unknown guy tinkering in his garage down the street. Find out for yourself.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


I don't really find it worth my time to go through that site in the hope to find a creditable test. Just post a direct link to a test including the test setup, the results and an independent party confirming it. Then I can read it and give my opinion about it.

As for the tests poster earlier, it was already pointed out they were faulty, as they used measuring devices that were not suited to measure non-sinusoidal signals. And besides that, also as pointed out, they also didn't seem to take in account the power factor, which can seriously mess up the test results.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I don't really find it worth my time to go through that site in the hope to find a creditable test. Just post a direct link to a test including the test setup, the results and an independent party confirming it. Then I can read it and give my opinion about it.


So you want to sit back and wait while others do all the work. Is basically what you're saying.

Well that's great, lots of people are like that and don't want to make any extra effort, but some people still have to volunteer to do the testing or it won't get done.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


I want the people who claim to have made the one of the most significant discovery in human history to be a bit more serious about it, and put some effort in convincing me. Its their call. If they don't care thats their problem. But don't expect me to accept their claims.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
I want the people who claim to have made the one of the most significant discovery in human history to be a bit more serious about it, and put some effort in convincing me.


Why should the most serious effort be spent to convince the people who are the least willing to help? That doesn't really make sense, does it?




Its their call. If they don't care thats their problem. But don't expect me to accept their claims.


Maybe it's you that doesn't care enough. The inventors spend the majority of their time and effort on the people who care enough to actually try the experiments and get involved with replicating and testing. They can hardly be faulted for that, can they?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


I want the people who claim to have made the one of the most significant discovery in human history to be a bit more serious about it, and put some effort in convincing me. Its their call. If they don't care thats their problem. But don't expect me to accept their claims.


I agree. The attitude of Friedrich is beyond belief:


Bedini SG Self-Runner

May 17, 2007, Rick Fredrich wrote:

"Replicate at your own risk.....
I have no interest in leaving this setup as constructed as I have long been satisfied with the results along the lines I describe. I don’t need it to prove to myself any further and I do not believe it is necessary to prove to anyone else. And I don’t care to be some person who shows it to the world as that is not my calling in life."
So basically he's saying "if you are looking for proof this thing works, don't ask me, I took mine apart so I don't have to show it to anybody and I don't need to prove it".

So here he's got the holy grail, an endless supply of free power, and what does he do with it? He takes it apart? So he can waste all that time he spent on it and send his money to the utility company instead?

Is that what you would do with your endless supply of free power?

Please, give me a break! None of what he says makes the least bit of sense if it works, but it all makes perfect sense if it's a hoax. Anybody with half a brain can see that.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Sorry but you may be aiming to high looking for half a brain when it comes to stories like this



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Why should the most serious effort be spent to convince the people who are the least willing to help? That doesn't really make sense, does it?


What makes you think I don't care about limitless energy sources? My stance is more that if even they don't care, why should I? Like I said, if they come with a well performed test, confirmed by at least one independent party, I will definably give it a read. Then if also experts in this field confirm the tests were done correctly and the results really seem to show over unity, then it will become a lot more creditable to me.

You think this is too much to ask from someone claiming to have made one of the most significant discoveries ever? If so, you are easily satisfied.


Maybe it's you that doesn't care enough. The inventors spend the majority of their time and effort on the people who care enough to actually try the experiments and get involved with replicating and testing. They can hardly be faulted for that, can they?


Yes, trying to sell their kits. While they should be letting professional test labs perform these tests.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by -PLB-]





top topics
 
59
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join