So you want Free Energy?

reply to post by Symbiot


Thank you very much for posting these videos Symbiot.

And i am encouraged that the intellectual cowards and sycophants on these boards, won't argue with you on the specific points you have raised, but rather they are sticking to the same, boring, pathetic and weak tactics of insinuations of stupidity, parroting enforced scientific dogmas, and intellectual browbeating. And of course, the classic turn of phrase 'snake oil'.

Not everyone that says such rubbish is directly 'in on the plot' to suppress research and stifle potential discovery in these areas, the majority are gullible repeaters who feel they are somehow superior if they never think or experiment against established theory...a contradiction in terms, if you ask me.

Remember, it only takes a handful of planted agitators among thousands of peaceful protesters on a march or rally, to stage violent confrontations and create of pockets of aggression, then a snowball effect can happen and what was once a peaceful protest can quickly become a raging angry mob.

This is a tactic that is as widely used by the authorities today, just as much as it was used centuries ago, and it's a tactic that used to work well in attempting to stifle alternative energy research.

The same, tried and testing tactic of planting a few 'professional' agitators to stir up the ever present 'repeaters', and soon they have accumulated and steered a large dissenting and sneering crowd, all basically repeating what the original agitators have said.

As for the repeaters of the 'snake oil' persuasion..

Are there people on this world that are out to commit fraud and extract money for bogus products and services?

Of course there is.

I would regard that as an absolute fact of human existence. To think otherwise, would be not only ridiculously ignorant, but bordering on insanity.

Simply because crime and fraud exists as an indisputable and unarguable fact of life, it in no logical way follows that in every given area where crime and fraud exists, the given area as a whole is fraudulent or out to commit crime.

To think so, moreover, to imply so is actually incredibly ignorant and bordering on insanity in itself...or deliberately attempting to push an agenda through incorrect logic.

Are there fake tickets for shows and concerts, even though the concert actually exists? Yes, there are. Are there genuine tickets?

Are there other counterfeit items in circulation that may include antiques, designer clothing? Jewelery? Money? Electrical goods? Cosmetics and perfumes? Livestock? Vehicles? Gems? Gold, silver and other precious metals? Are there frauds in financial services? On the stock markets? Are there religious frauds?

Yes, of course there is.

Does it follow that all or the majority of people and outlets selling or promoting these items and services are fraudulent too?

Of course not.

As for established dogma...

Did established theory state (for thousands of years, in fact) that life spontaneously arose from mud or out of thin air? YES it did, and was widely believed to be true up until the early 17th century (spontaneous generation)

Did established theory state that all illness and disease was caused by 'bad humours', an imbalance of blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm in the body, and that cutting open a vein to release an 'excess of blood' would restore the balance of these humours and cure the disease? YES, it did, up until as recently as the Victorian era.

Did established theory state that the Earth was at the center of the Universe, and that everything revolved around our planet? Yes, it did.

Did established theory claim it extremely unlikely, that other planets existed beyond our solar system? Yes, it did.

Did established theory state that heavier than air, human flight was impossible? Yes it did.

Did established theory state that to travel faster than 50mph, would cause suffocation to a human being as the air pressure would be unsuitable to breath? Yes, it did (right up until train locomotion proved it wrong)

Did established theory claim only fairly recently in fact, that to find any Earth like exo-solar planet was extremely unlikely? Yes, it did. Now there are serious scientific estimates, that millions of Earth-like (not identical to Earth) may exist in our galaxy alone.

There are just a few among a great many of other examples of mainstream and dogmatic science being completely wrong, sometimes wrong for centuries and millenia.

In fact, as long as there have been human beings around to create theory and dogma, excepted as fact by the majority, there has been monumental errors, that had persisted and widely perpetuated, in some cases for thousands of years.

Often, those that proffered 'heretical' views that dared to contradict those mainstream theories, suffered greatly for their superior insights, and many were imprisoned, impoverished or put to death - only to be proven correct at a later date, when dogma had caught up with actual fact.

The current crop of 'dogma enforcers' REALLY need to change their material or approaches, it's as transparent now as it was years ago.

The problem they have of course, is they cannot combat the advance of alternative energy research and knowledge with these worn out tactics any longer, with any high degree of effectiveness anyway.

It used to be more or less enough to insult and ridicule, in the days before mass communication via the internet, because experimenters and their peers were more or less isolated and more susceptible to these types of psychological attacks designed to cause them to lose heart and discontinue activity and thought...but not so any longer.

As the technologies and methodologies are researched and experimented on en mass, and instantly disseminated to like minded others right across the globe, a small discovery here, an alternative material and construction method there, is making admittedly slow but steady progress towards our final goal of cheap, clean and decentralized energy for all, which will save countless millions of lives, and cause hunger and thirst in our world to be a distant memory.

It will transform hostile and inhospitable areas on Earth into desirable and valuable habitable zones, food and fresh water can be grown and produced with little expense 24 hours a day.

Our land, sea and air travel will be revolutionized, and too would our space travel and the opportunities to create space habitats and colonization of other worlds.

The only downside, would be if energy companies and their shareholders, did not diversify their interests soon enough to cushion the economic impact to their bank balances...shame.

Thank you again Symbiot, for helping to chip away at the armor of ignorance that is perpetuated regarding the possibility for advancement against dogma in energy generation research.

It's appreciated, and every bit counts.

IF Tesla were still alive he could figure out how to get energy from "the wheelwork of nature"

Since the sun is putting out energy nonstop, we can try to harness that. Or since Earth is in motion we can harness that. Or if there is an aether, we could harness that. Or since the planets are all moving, we could harness that. Or since everything vibrates, we could harness that.

But we burn oil and coal.

reply to post by spikey


If a design concept breaks the known laws of physics I don't think it's unreasonable to expect irrefutable proof. Considering it hasn't been implemented I'm even less inclined to buy into the idea. If that makes me an stooge of "The Man" or whatever paranoid conspiracy I get pigeon-holed into then... well, what can you do, eh?

reply to post by spikey


Scientific theories have been wrong in the past. They proved this by putting them to the test in order to determine whether or not they were bunk. This is what the Large Hadron Collider is supposed to do. It's what the Michelson-Morley experiment did. Hypothetically, if someone came up with the theory that the earth is in actuality round we could go up into space to prove it. Scientists test theories to determine whether or not they are true. This has been done with the law of conservation of energy time and time again. We use generators, electric motors, permanent magnets, coils, electromagnets, and so on all the time. They are very well understood as are all relevant principles of physics.

Over-unity devices would be like saying the earth is flat despite it have already been proven that it's round. To suggest that our current understanding of the universe is wrong, and that connecting a generator to an electric motor and connecting that back to the generator, is absurd. Show me, prove it, otherwise there's no difference between this and any other unproved theory. This does not mean the law of conservation of energy will never be broken, but if it ever is, very strong evidence will be required to disprove it. It's what the Michelson-Morley experiment did to some theories of space-time being an aether. That is what science is all about. Evidence. The observable, the repeatable, and the recordable.

To be fair, it was claimed that the energy doesn't appear out of thin air, but rather comes from the magnets, but this is fallacious because magnets do not contain large amounts of energy. Induction works by converting mechanical energy into electrical energy. This is a fact, it is also how generators work, no energy actually is extracted from the magnets themselves. Magnets are created by aligning particles within a substance by their polarity, they are not in any sense batteries unless you convert them from mass back into energy. You called me a coward. Well answer this question. How do magnets store massive sums of energy? I'm guessing you can't because they don't, it's not how magnets work at all. If I recall correctly, the electrons moving around the atoms create the magnetic field. Line them up and you have a workable magnetic field. That's not a battery, however.

I also think you have the roles reversed. It does take a handful of planted agitators among thousands of peaceful protesters on a march or rally to start violence. Similarly, it also takes a handful of 'alternative energy' researchers to cause thousands of people to believe in BS, or should I say, anti-science. It's what has happened throughout the centuries with what are known as snake-oil salesmen. Even if it is for no monetary gain, fraudulent ideas can still be 'sold' as authentic which means it's still snake-oil.

It is extremely harmful because it detracts from real solutions. Over unity devices detract from actual workable ways of providing low-cost, low-pollution, low-carbon, decentralized sources of energy, that, I might add, I am a massive advocate for. I have suggested in other threads that we need to spend more attention to these energy sources. But they need to be workable, acheivable goals. This is neither. It's anti-science. And it causes more harm than good by preventing the very goal that the proponents are trying to achieve. Even worse is when it is for monetary gain, like it very often is for 'alternative' energy ideas. One positive note, is that in no serious discussion by any energy professional or energy activist have I ever seen over-unity or and permanent magnet anti-science brought up. It is likely that it will remain as marginalized as ever, as it should remain until new evidence points to something that is observable, the repeatable, and recordable. Should more research into this be performed? Yes, and it is, especially in areas in quantum mechanics... But arranging a bunch of magnets in a special way and claiming they are batteries is nothing more than snake oil.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
I made a mistake posting here. Won't happen again I assure you.

Alright well don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out!

Na na na na... na na na na... hey hey hey....

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by Symbiot
reply to post by rnaa

 

Actually future thinker up there posted a vid that proves this type of concept is sound.

"Proof" is a very strong word. You need a hell of a lot more than a YouTube video to "prove" something, ........ so I'm out of here!

you only run away when there is something to run from,

absolutely any form of evidence for any sort of claim can be video taped, youtube is nothing more then a site for a collection of video's so why then are people so afraid of thinking it could house anything official?

if i put up on youtube a documentary on the laws of physics would you then say this proves the laws are wrong?

biased if not.


btw i like this video here, it's the same concept, you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of magnet motors on youtube, but god forbid anyone should trust the info contained in a video so long as it is or isnt on youtube,

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by C0bzz


Tesla was on the same page, and I am sure there were people who thought he wouldn't accomplish his projects. He invented the AC generator, and hell numerous other inventions many of which were supressed and hidden.

A physics teacher once told me, NOTHING is impossible in Physics. I agree, many things are unlikely to happen without manipulation, but it takes tweaking and refining to hammer out the details. I say Never give up, the answers to energy problems are out there, I just wish I had the technical know how in math, and other aspects of electric components to contribute, because I have ideas of my own I would love to TRY and TEST, just to see if I can make anything of it.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


I've seen that video before. I like it, too. I would be interested to see what the opponents of 'free energy' say about this. Any takers? Also, does anyone have a schematic on how to build that?

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


This argument is stupid for the following reasons:

1) It breaks the known laws of physics
2) It hasn't even been built yet
3) The only supporting "evidence" is a youtube video.

If this is adequate enough for people to entertain the idea (let alone defend it ferociously) then they need to engage in a bit of critical thinking

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

btw i like this video here, it's the same concept, you'll find hundreds upon hundreds of magnet motors on youtube, but god forbid anyone should trust the info contained in a video so long as it is or isnt on youtube,

Here's a (very good) honest attempt at replicating the device:

www.youtube.com...

Note that the experimenter has other videos posted with modifications suggested by viewers but no success which leads one to think that the device is actually a hoax as suggested by replicator himself. A video will never be proof either way regardless of where it's posted because it's way too easy to make anything look genuine through such a medium with the tools freely available now. Yes there are 100s of free energy devices on youtube and all of them shout 'fake' to an experienced eye.

Originally posted by B.Morrison
if the machine works, it works. F**k your physics.

Trial and error is all that matters,

If a machine is built that forces us to revise our understanding of the laws of physics, then we will do so.

But why do you think the machine in the OP videos is a model and not a working machine? It's kind of funny how so many say they have concepts that will work but no working models that work.

Some people seem to think the laws of physics are formulas that come out of a book and that doesn't mean as much as building an experimental model and testing it. While I don't want to discourage anyone from doing your own experiments (go ahead, you may learn something), the laws of physics are more than just formulas in a book, they were actually derived from experimental trial and error which proved them, over and over and over again.

However I would discourage you from spending your entire life on a failed concept, like this guy who has trying to build a working model of his idea since 1946:

www.searlsolution.com...

I mean seriously, how long does it take?

Here's some advice: If you think something will work how about building it and showing us a working model instead of claims, diagrams, plans, hopes, and dreams (failed)? Then you can prove to yourself whether it works or not and don't have to listen to physics experts tell you about the laws of physics.

By the way, they're your laws of physics too, swearing at them doesn't make them go away.

There are the true laws of physics (which have nothing to do with man's understanding), and then there are the laws of physics written by man based on man's understanding of the true laws. While I would be the first person to agree there are gaps in our understanding of the true laws of physics, I would NOT agree that the area of electromagnetism is an area with such gaps. Lots of people have tried to build electromagnetic contraptions like this and they have all only proven further that electromagnetism is one area of the natural world we have a fairly good understanding of, with respect to the operation of motors and generators such as this.

Why do i want to STORE the energy created?

I WANT TO USE! IT...

reply to post by C0bzz


I read your post very carefully and you don't seem to have disproved anything....I mean sure you pointed out how magnets work, their capacity for charge, ability to hold energy, you pointed out also the confusion by 'someone' between magnets & batteries. You did however also mention that someone could achieve a workable magnetic field aligning the magnets the way mentioned in OP, All of the above offers no conclusive 'anything' to point out exactly why this machine 'does' or 'doesn't' work.

The point is not whether 'we' understand the details ....what the point is,
will this device both provide sufficient energy for my needs,
and will that save me money when compared to what I was paying previously for the same amount of energy.

to reiterate - I don't need to be a scientist to appreciate & use science....if it works...it works...

-B.M

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But why do you think the machine in the OP videos is a model and not a working machine? It's kind of funny how so many say they have concepts that will work but no working models that work.

Here's some advice: If you think something will work how about building it and showing us a working model instead of claims, diagrams, plans, hopes, and dreams (failed)?

Please explain how people are supposed to "show you a working model"?

How can anyone prove they have something that works in an internet thread?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But why do you think the machine in the OP videos is a model and not a working machine?

I didn't.

It's kind of funny how so many say they have concepts that will work but no working models that work.

I had something witty to say there, but then I realized you were suggesting the obvious that if someone had a working device, why not just show that device in a working state...I state this later on in this post too because I originally had something different up here...back when i thought that quote was directed at me not the video author....damn it was a good comeback too..

Some people seem to think the laws of physics are formulas that come out of a book and that doesn't mean as much as building an experimental model and testing it. While I don't want to discourage anyone from doing your own experiments (go ahead, you may learn something), the laws of physics are more than just formulas in a book, they were actually derived from experimental trial and error which proved them, over and over and over again.

I hear you and those are good points, but my beef is with the discussion methods used by a lot of the 'specialists' on ATS, they just cannot seem to discuss things without being obnoxious, and if they somehow are wrong about something, they cannot accept it and will flutter about with unrelated trivia that goes over the heads of those they're talking to in order to confuse their way out of the conflict. I'm not suggesting you or anyone specifically is doing this, just that that behavior, is what I'm against, and my motivation for posting.

However I would discourage you from spending your entire life on a failed concept, like this guy who has trying to build a working model of his idea since 1946:
www.searlsolution.com...

If he succeeds on his deathbed then good on him. If not, oh well...glad it wasn't me

I mean seriously, how long does it take?

how long is a piece of string....?

Here's some advice: If you think something will work how about building it and showing us a working model

agreed, if it works, why not just show that it works?

But for at least one perpetual motion mechanical/solar device that DOES work I suggest you watch "A machine to die for: the quest for free energy", its the very last one mentioned, and if the physic guy wasn't an A-Hole & state "it cannot be a perpetual motion device because physic dictates that everything stops/ends eventually" and if not for that cop out statement, the inventor would have won the physicists contest. see because the physicist used that law in his arguement, he created a competition that no one could win....but no doubt you're wondering what I'm talking about...watch the doco

By the way, they're your laws of physics too, swearing at them doesn't make them go away.

True but I'm swearing at know it all boffins who spit jargon all over the place and then bail without ever explaining in layman terms exactly why they were of their opinions. I encounter it over and over again on ATS....and I got fed up with it....

If you can't make stupid things sound smart,
and smart things sound stupid; then you will be a lousy (or at the least limited) communicator,
its that simple.

Other people might like to say "on the streets, everybody's equal."

There are the true laws of physics (which have nothing to do with man's understanding), and then there are the laws of physics written by man based on man's understanding of the true laws. While I would be the first person to agree there are gaps in our understanding of the true laws of physics, I would NOT agree that the area of electromagnetism is an area with such gaps. Lots of people have tried to build electromagnetic contraptions like this and they have all only proven further that electromagnetism is one area of the natural world we have a fairly good understanding of, with respect to the operation of motors and generators such as this.

A statement like that one goes a long way to helping me understand.

-B.M

P.S) sorry if any of that seemed hostile toward you...nothing personal, nothing hostile even..just my writing style tonight...

Originally posted by B.Morrison
agreed, if it works, why not just show that it works?

Again - show that it works HOW?

John Bedini for example has released patents, schematics, books, videos, and open-source kits with all the parts and instructions in them. He has done everything he could reasonably be expected to do to prove it.

Bearden has gone into quite lengthy explanations of the physics involved and he tells us which physicists did the pioneering work and which books to go read.

But some people still don't want to believe them, they say "they haven't proven it" or "if it really worked then everyone would already be using it" etc.

IMHO Free Energy technology has already been successfully disclosed. Some people are just too stubborn to believe it in spite of all the evidence.

well I would also settle on"energy for free". I hate my energy bills and I think it is a form of modern piracy.

Oh how they rape and pillage my wallet.

Poseidon why have you forsaken me?

I cast my empty lot to the sea dogs and alas....

I have not my reward.

aarrgggg.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


I wanna see more of this one...Sounds interesting..
And in my view its working...

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by spikey

 

If a design concept breaks the known laws of physics I don't think it's unreasonable to expect irrefutable proof. Considering it hasn't been implemented I'm even less inclined to buy into the idea. If that makes me an stooge of "The Man" or whatever paranoid conspiracy I get pigeon-holed into then... well, what can you do, eh?

Mate, i'm not arguing against the requirement to provide proof. I never stated otherwise. I would NEVER part with hard won cash on any device that claimed overunity or even unity, without proof. I'm enthusiastic about the research, but i'm not a gullible moron. I wouldn't expect anyone else to accept these claims on face value either.

I haven't stated that i believe or disbelieve the particular device featured in the videos posted by the OP is what could be called overunity or even close to it...i have no idea one way or the other.

What i am arguing against, and will continue to argue with my last breath, is the automatic assumption that such devices are an absolute impossibility, and rejected out of hand.

Human beings are not subject to or bound by theory, even long established ones. We have a brain that allows us freedom of thought, the freedom to create, to formulate, to achieve moments of inspired clarity.

Because the church or science or tradition says i cannot perform X, simply because X has not been discovered or proven, does not mean that i cannot create or formulate or think about X and design novel methodologies to achieve X.

The point of my post was to illustrate that the usual replies to topics like these are based on incorrect assumption.

People wrongly assume that simply because an established and accepted theory had been formulated, devices designed and built on the principles of those theories, and proven to operate as intended for decades or even centuries of utilizing those principles, that somehow automatically and irrevocably negates the possibility for an alternate theory based on different principles and methodologies, to achieve a radically different way to create the same end product...in this case electricity.

This is not a fantastic notion, it's not without a LOT of president as the examples i previously gave show.

Long held and cherished theories, regarded as inalienable fact, that ultimately fell by the wayside as absolute piffle, due to pioneers who had the courage and ingenuity to question and reject dogma, use their conviction to design and formulate superior theory and methodologies to achieve the same product (whatever it happens to be) but in a radically different way, hitherto believed impossible or fanciful.

History is full of this stuff. I am not arguing for a particular device...or even if there currently exists a particular device that is capable of achieving overunity, i have seen many that hold promise but are a work in progress, with proof needed to be forthcoming.

Science cannot have it's cake and eat it. We are told time and time again, in archaeology for example, that the history of the human race, is one of a linear path of technological progress, discovery and refinement. At a given key point, alternatives to established practices or beliefs were cultivated and civilization vaulted forwards with the benefits gained from the new found knowledge.

Alternative methodologies and ways of proceeding to solve a particular problem, lead to innovation and invention and change society, this is how the linear path principle supposedly works.

If this is so, then why is it so unreasonable to assume that the same linear path of technological progression, of innovation and discovery, would be any different in the energy related fields?

The point is, simply parroting and repeating dogma is ultimately a short sighted view, and repeatedly proven by history to be fundamentally flawed and counter to advancement.

And no mate, not believing wholeheartedly in overunity machines in and of themselves does not make you a stooge of 'the man' at all, quoting the man's dogma as a reason for experimenters to pack up their spanners and screwdrivers, and go down the boozer instead would though, whether you realized you were being used as a stooge or not (not that you said that of course, but you know what i mean)

Cheers for your reply and apologies in advance for errors in my grammar...when i'm rolling along, i'm rolling along and the thoughts are straining at the leash to get out there!

For those who are convinced that this device is a good way of providing an electricity source alternative, I would suggest the following:

Build a scaled up version of the device, connect it to a household main electrical panel, cancel the electricity utility account to the premises, then post videos showing how the device is powering the home.

I mean no disrespect in suggesting this. I merely would like to see if the device would work in a real-world situation for providing household electricity.