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.

 

Terrawatt Research LLC Verified Overunity Generator Revealed

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Those who argue that such an energy system breaks the laws of energy conservation are making one fundamental mistake. We are not dealing with matter here to produce energy.

When dealing with the material universe the laws of conservation are operational, and as far as I know, it can not be broken. However, what these guys are doing, and so is everyone else who tinkers with the concept shown, is to deal with particles that have just emerged out of pre-matter.

They are not matter but are correspondent parts thereof. They are not gravity respondent; they get collected by setting up conditions where they can be collected and made to flow. They produce “free” energy when they are forced to convert to a particle of matter such as an electron. One forces them to convert by setting up conditions where they want to huddle together. Every electron is formed when 100 huddle together, and in a flash, the electron appears. If the machine is not properly utilizing magnetic fields, the electron will disappear just as quickly.


There are two basic steps I believe in making this concept work.

1) Find a way to get the particles described to flow into the machine;

2) Design a device which converts the flow of pre-matter units into electrons to do the work, and keep them flowing.


The problem as I see it is the inability to maintain a steady state of conversion. Collection will become variable when the inventor experiences changes in the magnetic field for what appears to be for unknown reasons.

I make no criticism of what has been done here. I hope very much it works and can be made dependable as we desperately need this source of energy for the planet. There are lots of other approaches to the problem and I certainly do not comprehend just what they may have done in this particular instance– I just can not tell. My reason for posting this is to bring attention to what energy they are accessing. Pre-matter units when attracted to a device like this give off “extra” energy when converted.




posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by truthquest
Laws can be broken in physics because they are not real laws but actually they are guesses. Physics experts make an educated guess that over-unity devices cannot happen. They base that on lots of evidence no doubt. Yet, people can be wrong. What physics expert believe is impossible can and does happen from time to time.

Its not a bad idea to keep putting the laws to the test to find the true boundaries because laws can be wrong.

A scientific law is not just a "guess" as you put it. Please get your terminology right before making such assertions.


By following the Wikipedia definition, which is a fairly good one, we can learn:
A. "The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning."

B. "Induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true."

If someone makes a statement which they know could be false, but they make it any way, it means they are guessing. Therefore, scientific laws are guesses.

Even though you scolded me, I won't be so rude as to scold you back. Be wrong all you want in fact... I'll politely correct everything you say that I disagree with... starting by saying I believe that a scientific laws is a form of a guess and therefore one would be unwise to be a full 100% certain it is correct.

People should continue to put "scientific laws" to the test for as long as they don't know entirely everything, which happens to be forever in all likely-hood. Again, laws can be wrong and therefore it is a good idea to test them out for your self.

[edit on 17-7-2010 by truthquest]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Lets have a look at the rest of the information in the source you posted, shall we?

"A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated"

Emphasis mine. A scientific law is not some wild guess, it is backed up repeated observation.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by john_bmth]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
People should continue to put "scientific laws" to the test for as long as they don't know entirely everything, which happens to be forever in all likely-hood. Again, laws can be wrong and therefore it is a good idea to test them out for your self.


I tend to agree. Even though the laws of thermodynamics are very strong we should not always dismiss evidence to the contrary.

After all Newton's Law was supersceded by Einstein and shown to be incorrect under certain conditions.



[edit on 18/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
"These guys have tested their device at both UL and TUV labs. Both recorded the same free energy effect".

I must tell you I have been laughing really hard at those lines.


So have you viewed the test report on the tuv website? Or do you think they have hacked the site and placed a series of fake reports on there?




I have on my pc Teechart office free software.

With it I can generate any number of professional looking data sets ,complex graphs, professional looking charts,reports, etc.

I can produce those reports easily.

And by the way a recent study of peer reviewed papers submitted for publication showed plagiarism levels of 45% to 80%! This was detected by software called Checkup.

daniel-g is completely correct IN HIS POST.



"This company is run and backed by former CIA and FBI officials".

haa ha haahaa haaaaaaaaaaaaa!!


Can I ask the original poster if I can use this as my signature as I find a constant source of merriment.Everytime I think about it!




posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So have you viewed the test report on the tuv website? Or do you think they have hacked the site and placed a series of fake reports on there?

With it I can generate any number of professional looking data sets ,complex graphs, professional looking charts,reports, etc.


So can i look forward to seeing your fake professional looking charts on the tuv site tomorrow?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by nobodysavedme

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So have you viewed the test report on the tuv website? Or do you think they have hacked the site and placed a series of fake reports on there?

With it I can generate any number of professional looking data sets ,complex graphs, professional looking charts,reports, etc.


So can i look forward to seeing your fake professional looking charts on the tuv site tomorrow?



I am not selling anything or claiming anything and I don't want to commit fraud.

Tuv site just hosting the stuff anyway.The could not care if black was green or white.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


You seem to be missing my point.

You pay TUV to test your equipment and they make the reports available, good or bad. TUV are one of the leading and most respected independant test houses. You can't ask or pay them to host your own reports.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
I am hopeful that this technology is legit. We really won't know for sure until they get some universities to actually review the technology and to test it for a while. And even then some real-world operational studies.

Any idea when they will be making ones that can be purchased for the home?

Any videos of the thing in operation?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I keep seeing the "Laws of Physics" thrown around in these kind of threads !

If "Perpetual motion machines" and "Over-unity" machines are impossible, What is the explanation for the humble Water Wheel ?

I would claim the "Natural Force" driving the wheel is part of the mechanism as a whole, and as such is clearly an Over-unity machine !!!

Similarly Tidal, Solar, And wind powered machines are utilising a natural force to be part of the whole Mechanism.

So in this case, the machine posted as the topic of this thread, is a machine utilising a "Natural Force" (Magnetism) to be part of its mechanism.......Yes ?

So why do people scoff when there is a precedence of "Natural Forces" being used in these machines.

Whether or not this machine can do what they say....I don't know, but i'm open to the possibility that the force of Magnetism could possibly be used in such a machine.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


Oh, another "overunity" contraption du jour...

And it seems that magnets are still the favorite among these charlatans... They really seem like magic, don't they? Bring out the inner child.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme



conservation of mass energy forbids any free energy.

it is a :-

FUNDAMENTAL UNBREAKABLE LAW GOVERNING THE WHOLE UNIVERSE.


No, it's not. You have shown a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.

Conservation of energy is a principle which we believe to be true, because it helps to explain fundamental observations in the world, and it s predictions pan out. It is NOT a universal law; it is formulated as such because it SEEMS to be a universal law. Perhaps it does hold; I suspect so. But it is NOT hard and fast the way you say.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Uh, this thing is not solid state, it does not incorporate an aether sink or negative resistance - it is still entropic. I don't care if it is OU, can it power anything indefinitely?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
I keep seeing the "Laws of Physics" thrown around in these kind of threads !

If "Perpetual motion machines" and "Over-unity" machines are impossible, What is the explanation for the humble Water Wheel ?

A water wheel is not over unity, any more than a windmill is. "Free" energy, in the sense that it requires only an initial startup cost and occasional maintenance, yes, but over unity as in producing more energy than it consumes? No.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





but over unity as in producing more energy than it consumes? No.


More energy than it consumes ?

Read what i said again, I said the Whole mechanism behind the water wheel makes it over-unity. !!!

Meaning the Earth and its atmosphere that contribute to making the rivers that flow that turn the water wheel ARE PART OF THE MECHANISM. And if you want to go further we could say the whole universe in some way or another contributes to that mechanism.....And as we are all taught that the universe was created from nothingness......Then no energy could have been consumed....No ?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by john_bmth
 





but over unity as in producing more energy than it consumes? No.


More energy than it consumes ?

Read what i said again, I said the Whole mechanism behind the water wheel makes it over-unity. !!!

Meaning the Earth and its atmosphere that contribute to making the rivers that flow that turn the water wheel ARE PART OF THE MECHANISM. And if you want to go further we could say the whole universe in some way or another contributes to that mechanism.....And as we are all taught that the universe was created from nothingness......Then no energy could have been consumed....No ?

No, the Earth is not a closed loop. A water wheel harnesses the energy of flowing water as gravity pulls it to the ground. It cost energy to put it up there in the form of atmospheric conditions (i.e. rain). Where did the energy come from for these atmospheric conditions to arise? The sun. At each stage, the energy conversion is less than 100% efficient, including the water wheel. Thus, you are not gaining over unity or >100% efficiency (or even 100% efficiency).



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
There are lots of arguments here that depend on the definition of the terminology used.

For example I would call a solar panel 'free energy' if it could output more energy than that used in its contruction and operation over its usable life, so the consumer of the energy makes a net gain. After all this is what matters. It is obvious that the energy has come from the Sun but to the consumer it doesn't matter as there was no 'cost' for the excess energy.

The problem is some take 'free energy' or 'over unity' to mean that physical laws have been broken and like to argue their case incessantly.




[edit on 20/7/2010 by LightFantastic]



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 12:49 AM
link   
Someone I know has emailed the law firm where the two consultants on the terawatt website work asking if they are indeed affiliated with terawatt.

They received an immediate response asking why this information was needed. After giving a reason the law firm haven't replied.

I would guess if the two people aren't affiliated then this very large law firm would have those names and pictures removed pretty quickly.

By the way, one of these two consultants is the ex cia / fbi guy not the person that runs the company.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by john_bmth
 





but over unity as in producing more energy than it consumes? No.


More energy than it consumes ?


Is that not what over-unity means?


Read what i said again, I said the Whole mechanism behind the water wheel makes it over-unity. !!!


So the "whole mechanism" generates more energy than it takes in?


Meaning the Earth and its atmosphere that contribute to making the rivers that flow that turn the water wheel ARE PART OF THE MECHANISM. And if you want to go further we could say the whole universe in some way or another contributes to that mechanism.....And as we are all taught that the universe was created from nothingness......Then no energy could have been consumed....No ?


Did the meaning of over-unity change?



posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
no video evidence ? not even a known scientist explaining how it works just some graphs and words on a site which will expire in 2011 ? their company was created in 2008 any serious company will buy the domain like forever, but it seems only 1 year for them until they run away with the investors money. this game has become boring and old farts need to just go back and watch TV, everybody knows we can use mini gens to hook into a bigger one and produce bigger results no secret there ? just stupidity



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join