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.

 

Anti-Gravity & Zero Point Energy Device Confirmed by Measurements in Morningstar Energy Box

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Because I have not read ALL his work, I have no money (you know that already), and I am not an engineer. I do understand, however that a great deal of what he has to offer has everything to do with the fact that Heaviside and Briggs truncated Maxwell's quaternions, eliminating half of what Maxwell described. This is so typical of disinfo, love. "Why don't YOU do it?" C'mon. You can be more creative than that, I think.


Okay, so send me a working blueprint for his model. I don't think you understand that unless his miracle invention works than all the Science he made up behind it is worthless.


Or it's proprietary. Just because you don't know of its working does not mean it doesn't. I'm not saying it does, mind you, but that you cannot confirm or deny its status as a working devise. And I have covered the probability that he may have had a "talk" with a suppression agent. Again, I'm not saying it happened. Just that there is a fair probability of that being the case.




Tell me why my father, who was an electrical engineer working for one of the top aerospace companies in the 1950's would come home from work often, glowing with excitement at being able to share his work with me, try to explain how EG works, describe what the future would hold for Humanity because of it, and then come home one night and tell me it was secret


That doesn't prove anything was produced from it. That is research. They are researching how to make black holes right now. That doesn't mean they know how to make black holes.


No, it doesn't mean anything was produced...but the fact that it was pulled into black ops does not lend anything to the idea that it was a dead end, and in fact lends a great deal to the idea that something WAS produced.


His research could have failed, you have no idea to the contrary, apparently.


[sigh] I have an idea. A pretty damned good one, at that. Again, they don't pull unsuccessful research and development into black ops.




Disinfo tactic.


Yes, I'm secret agent boncho with the bureau of dis-info.


Thanks for the context of my words... Whether you are a disinfo agent or someone who just happens to choose the exact behavior of one is unknown. I'm just saying that, given the behavior, a good probability exists that you have an agenda.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by ken10
 





We keep going back to "The laws of physics" and such to stop us moving forward, So lets look at the world around us...


Yeah, damn those stupid laws and whoever invented them.

I mean, what good have they ever done for us?


I missed this earlier, but would like to address it.

First, the "laws" of physics have been shown to break down in some cases. Second, some "laws" have been shown to have been developed with poor understanding, and better ones proposed. Third, given that virtually all physics is built on the Heaviside/Briggs truncation of Maxwell's quaternions, with half of the whole ignored, we must expect that there is more to these "laws" than we're presently working with.

So when the "laws" of physics are invoked, there is some probability that the conclusions based on them are incorrect. So throwing out the "laws" of physics as support anything a priori is less than absolutely sturdy.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Or it's proprietary. Just because you don't know of its working does not mean it doesn't. I'm not saying it does, mind you, but that you cannot confirm or deny its status as a working devise. And I have covered the probability that he may have had a "talk" with a suppression agent. Again, I'm not saying it happened. Just that there is a fair probability of that being the case.


Utter speculation. You spew nonsense. Your entire argument is that this is valid science and the claims made are valid. What's more likely, he made a device that breaks the laws of physics, or he is a scammer that lied?

And any scientific papers he writes are bunk because they are based on a non-working device that is supposed to prove his theory.



No, it doesn't mean anything was produced...but the fact that it was pulled into black ops does not lend anything to the idea that it was a dead end, and in fact lends a great deal to the idea that something WAS produced.


It leads to nothing. Idle speculation. You cross the fact fiction barrier too much with this idea. By the way, there are people in black ops that cook food for engineers, does not mean they were involved in anything more than cooking lobster. Black ops, is a term overused by you and it lends no credibility to your assumptions.



[sigh] I have an idea. A pretty damned good one, at that. Again, they don't pull unsuccessful research and development into black ops.


You know this because you read their classified information on success rates? You are speculating on everything. And it is not valid speculation because you portray this stuff like fact. Read some declassified material, you will see that not everything they research works out.



Thanks for the context of my words... Whether you are a disinfo agent or someone who just happens to choose the exact behavior of one is unknown. I'm just saying that, given the behavior, a good probability exists that you have an agenda.


If you haven't noticed, near every thread you are in you plug your 'end of entropy' BS. That means that, you, are the one with the agenda. I simply don't care about anything besides that people be more critical of BS. I skimmed through your book, it is a work of fiction, it has no application to the real world. You are a revolutionist that has nothing but fictional ideas of how to change the world. My suggestion is you try to market your book for what it is, fiction. And should you do so I wish you the best of luck.

Unless that was the original intent but I mistook how you were representing it


edit on 7-3-2011 by boncho because: homonyms



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Or it's proprietary. Just because you don't know of its working does not mean it doesn't. I'm not saying it does, mind you, but that you cannot confirm or deny its status as a working devise. And I have covered the probability that he may have had a "talk" with a suppression agent. Again, I'm not saying it happened. Just that there is a fair probability of that being the case.


Utter speculation. You spew nonsense. Your entire argument is that this is valid science and the claims made are valid. What's more likely, he made a device that breaks the laws of physics, or he is a scammer that lied?

And any scientific papers he writes are bunk because they are based on a non-working device that is supposed to prove his theory.


Listen. You go off and stew in your "You spew utter nonsense." I clearly said I was speculating. Yes, I have reason to believe it's valid. And I covered those "laws" of physics...

But because you are so prepared to behave like a disinfo agent, I'm just going to say...

Yep. You're right.

Have a nice life.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Amaterasu
 





Or it's proprietary. Just because you don't know of its working does not mean it doesn't. I'm not saying it does, mind you, but that you cannot confirm or deny its status as a working devise. And I have covered the probability that he may have had a "talk" with a suppression agent. Again, I'm not saying it happened. Just that there is a fair probability of that being the case.


Utter speculation. You spew nonsense. Your entire argument is that this is valid science and the claims made are valid. What's more likely, he made a device that breaks the laws of physics, or he is a scammer that lied?

And any scientific papers he writes are bunk because they are based on a non-working device that is supposed to prove his theory.


Listen. You go off and stew in your "You spew utter nonsense." I clearly said I was speculating. Yes, I have reason to believe it's valid. And I covered those "laws" of physics...

But because you are so prepared to behave like a disinfo agent, I'm just going to say...

Yep. You're right.

Have a nice life.


Standard response from you, "have a nice life", the words of a child.

Bearden claims to have made energy from nothing, that is breaking the laws of physics. There is nothing more to say about it than that. He hasn't provided any proven theory that says he is pulling energy from somewhere else in the universe. According to you that theory exists and you read it. Which is nonsense.

The zeroth law of thermodynamics allows the assignment of a unique temperature to systems which are in thermal equilibrium with each other.

The first law of thermodynamics mandates conservation of energy and states in particular that the flow of heat is a form of energy transfer.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or, equivalently, that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

The third law of thermodynamics concerns the entropy of a perfect crystal at absolute zero temperature, and implies that it is impossible to cool a system to exactly absolute zero.


Isn't the stuff you write called "the end of entropy"? It sounds like your opinion on Newton is not the same as mine.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The more one knows about a subject, the more one should realize, just how much he still has to learn.

There was a time when it was thought to be impossible to sail around the world because it was absolutely known to be flat. There was a time when it was thought to be impossible for man to fly or to go tho the moon and we all know what happens to those misconceptions. There was a time when physicist thought the atom was the smallest particle and then they discovered that it was actually made up of smaller particles called protons, neutrons and electrons. Today, we find ourselves looking for the "God Particle," go figure.

You seem to place a great deal of reliance on "the laws of physics." Personally, I think it's only fair that when referring to these laws, one refers to them as "the laws of physics as currently understood." Experiments being conducted at CERN and similar facilities around the world, in search of the "God Particle" and an understanding of the beginning of the universe, are at times opening up a whole new understanding of the laws physics, especially within the quantum realm. For instance, we now know that subatomic particles can communicate with each other at speeds exceeding the speed of light, something that Einstein would have claimed to be impossible.

The fact that we know so little about dark energy is evident by the fact that we still call it "Dark Energy" and to imply that nothing new could possibly be discovered, with respect to understanding and utilizing it, is just plain shortsightedness, IMO.

Personally I believe that the only things which are impossible to accomplish are those things "we" limit ourselves from doing.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Well thank god you showed up to tell us zero point is not even a good theory ...We need to get you to Nasa the department of energy Los alamos and MIT .... Oh and schedule you a meeting with steven hawking and MIchao koku or whatever his name is!!!

All of the poor misguided fools listed above (and more like the department of the navy and darpa) seem to be under the impression that ZPE is more than just a theory.

But I'm sure you're right and we should take your word for it instead



Helpful hint: When attempting to "debunk" a subject it's best to know SOMETHING about it.

Oh and just FYI ZPE is actually not considered a theory anymore it has been verified to the level necessary to call it a FACTUAL phenomena.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I love it when people throw out the "LAWS" of physics... which quantum physics pretty much negate all of them in one special ciircumstance or another and it's nolw known that even macro objects can run on quantum rules not standard model...

Beyond that I have something quick to add to the whole B 2 crash comment where the poster said the official cause of the crash was the airspeed indicator showing the wrong speed being the reason for the crash...

My response to this is as follows: in a craft that is as complex and digitally dependent as the b2 there is NO WAY they depend on a single airspeed indicator. Period end of story .... military aircraft have multiply redundant critical systems and where the b-2 DEPENDS on it's flight computer to stay airborne and the flight computer CANNOT do it's job without accurate data .... It's just stupid to think that more than one indicator would malf at the same time either.

However, if you are familiar with the townsend brown patents and his work involving assymtetric force on a capacitor. You would know that the b 2 would be an ideal candidate for application of this proven technology .... and even goes some way to explaining how they can bury the engines so deeep in the fueselage and coool the gases as much as they do and still generate enough thrust and lift to fly. One of Brown's patents was for a "static generating turbine" designed to use a turbine to create the massive voltages needed to achieve the assymetric force phenomenon . To my mind this makes sense for multiple reasons.

1. you could pretty easilly design a system where a turbine generates the voltages needed to charge the leading edge while at the same time having said turbine still develop thrust.

2. While there is an ATS'er that worked on the leading edges of the b 2 wingspans and says he did not see anything of the sort . My response to this is the equipment could very easily be installed AFTER at another facility as it does not have to be literally ON the leading edge it can be inside the wing in the hollow at the front of the airfoil if you u se the right materials to still allow field propagation through the skin of the wing (look up composites and their opacity to magnetic fields some time it is illuminating)


And one last thing Zero point is NOT so called free energy! It does not violate thermodynamics in any way. Now irresponsible parties within the alternate energy research community are just as much to blame as detractors and the main stream media that mocks research in these fields for the continued useage of that stupid word. Most people doing this research seriously will tell you you cannot get something for nothing and in fact that is not the goal. The goal is to achieve a synergistic effect where through a combination of factors you get a favorable return on the energy investment you put into your machine. sorty of like putting a waterwheel in a narrow portion of the stream because it flows faster. We are looking for ways to find "loopholes" of sorts or novel applications that give us a higher return of investment than conventional means. There is nothing IMPOSSIBLE about this synergy is a well known concept where on occasion the effect netted from something is greater than the sum of all parts put in.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Given the conspiracy of free energy supression by the 'elite', at what stage of mankind do we stop being forced to use fossil fuels? I mean, if we're ever going to get off this planet and spread to other worlds, using rockets isn't going to get us anywere.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Well thank god you showed up to tell us zero point is not even a good theory ...We need to get you to Nasa the department of energy Los alamos and MIT .... Oh and schedule you a meeting with steven hawking and MIchao koku or whatever his name is!!!

All of the poor misguided fools listed above (and more like the department of the navy and darpa) seem to be under the impression that ZPE is more than just a theory.

But I'm sure you're right and we should take your word for it instead



Helpful hint: When attempting to "debunk" a subject it's best to know SOMETHING about it.

Oh and just FYI ZPE is actually not considered a theory anymore it has been verified to the level necessary to call it a FACTUAL phenomena.




Oh and just FYI ZPE is actually not considered a theory anymore it has been verified to the level necessary to call it a FACTUAL phenomena.


I never said it wasn't a good theory, I never said it wasn't proven. Did you want to jump in with the rest of these people that claim you can harvest it? As in right now, as in someone CLAIMS THEY MADE A DEVICE TO PULL VACUUM ENERGY.

Jesus, it's like there are different languages here. People are claiming, that crackpots, have made THEIR OWN THEORY that says THEY CAN PULL UNLIMITED ENERGY FROM "ZERO POINT".

Which part do you not get? There is no explanation as to how they are countering the conservation principle. There is no new explanation or theory explaining how they do it. EX. The expansion of the universe is what causes there to virtual particles in a vacuum (and through this equation ___________ ) This is how we are affecting that and these are the return effects. (hypothetical)

No No NO. It is PEOPLE CLAIMING TO MAKE DEVICES OF FREE ENERGY WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE BEHIND IT.

So yes, tell me again how the zero point energy theory (proven) allows for infinite energy in its equation to be pulled out into and converted practically? As of right now, as of today, as in there is supposedly machines that can already do this.

If you want to argue the validity of ZPE and its future in energy production, knock yourself out, this thread is loaded with references to scammers and real scientists alike and if you want to discuss valid science it should not be in the same thread as a bunch of QUACKY, CRACKPOT ideas, so as no one gets confused.

Sole purpose being that there are hundreds of people selling FAKE ZERO POINT ENERGY DEVICES on the internet. And there is no reason to perpetuate these falsehoods. Jesus.

This isn't debunking or denying, just asking that people represent things without misleading information.

The idea, of future energy sources is great, it is interesting, and there is a lot of promise. However, presenting it like it is all fact is damn right absurd.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
This is an email sent to the honourable Claus Turtur and Wolfram Knapp. Someone claims that the program they used to calculate energy values in their experiment was flawed, meaning that any results that had are void. If anyone here wants to do some real fact checking the link to the program is HERE.





Original Message -----
From: Andrzej Pruszynski
To: sterlingda@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:21 AM
Subject: Professor Turtur 1 KW converter

Hello Mr Sterling,

I did check Professor Turtur progam calculating 1 KW output from a rotating magnet / coil setup. I had to convert it first from Pasca (found in one of PDF documents he produced) to Lua in order to be able to play with parameters. Alas his program contains a flaw in integration of results. This is why when you lower the integration step (dt) to 10, 100 or 1000 smaller value, the effect of energy generation vanishes.

He did post today his own compiled program and parameter sheet:

www.ostfalia.de...

You can try by yourself and play with 'dt' value, but it seems that there is no easy way to get this ZPE strait-on.

I alerted professor Turtur about it, but he said he has no time to look into there before end of March. This is a way too late, for potential experimenter loosing his time and money.

Regards,

Andrzej Pruszynski
Switzerland



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Alas, after checking prof. Turtur program for calculating physical parameters of device, I discovered error in his method of calculating energy. This come from so called 'Stiff Sets of Equations'. You can check it by yourself setting number of integration steps (dt) to 100000 (from 10000) or even bigger.

So 1070 Watts vanished and instability he speaks about with a lot of graphics as well. I alerted him twice and upon second email he answered he may have time end of March. In mean time people will spend time and money trying to build impossible device.

Bottom line is: if you need computer to make calculations make sure you understand how calculations are made or try to use GSL libraries. Especially if you are professor of physics.
Quote




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 




IMO, two income households, which is today's norm, is probably the single biggest factor related to our failing educational system and gang violence. Teachers cannot be expected to make up the slack for parents who are no longer involved in the kid's education and/or day to day lives.


BINGO!

Exactly right.

And the scary part is, everyone knows it but can't do anything about it as they have to work harder and longer just to tread water.

More and more 'latch key kids' and more knackered, disenfranchised and frazzled parents leads to more and more societal decay and degeneration.

My choice is always my family, not a large expensive house and car, i don't buy into the whole chasing avarice from the cradle to the grave bit, but that's just me.

ETA We wouldn't really need to have sea water desalination plants (although i get what you're saying of course), because we can just use large electrically powered condenser units to literally suck the water from the atmosphere where we need it.

The sun will do the business on the sea water, and we just condense it down right where we need it.

Same principle as taking an ice cold can of soda pop from the fridge on a hot day...it'll condense the water right out of the air.

Just had a look at the link showing the device...the actual device is a rip off of John Searls' work, the SEG.

This is my fourth or fifth post today that hasn't got any replies...i'm starting to feel like a fart in a spacesuit around here...ah well.

edit on 8/3/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/3/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
I am in no means a physicist,however after reading several articles about the "mysterious" effects of H4 climbing up the walls of a container,it occurred to me that a supercooled element with almost null friction,could possibly be forced up the walls of a container by the force of the air above it.I saw no referrence to the effect of the weight of air over it.I understand that petrolium products are slippery because the molecules are "flat shaped" and so slide over each other easily.It seems to me that anything supercooled would become "electron-ly still"causing them to become flat and lose friction.Could it be that being so flat,with so little friction,that the weight of the air above them actually is forcing the H4 out,as much as a solid cylinder would displace them?Does the same reaction occur in a vacuum?Or in Zero-G?Has this been considered?I read as much as I could grasp,till it was over my head,but this would seem to be the simplest cause,to me.I don't care if you eggheads laugh,just tell me why this is wrong.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
ok,Ijust realised that I could post a reply to certain messages,I;m new to this site.However,anyone who can reply to my previous post can also email me at freakdaddy98@yahoo.com.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by Flatfish
 



ETA We wouldn't really need to have sea water desalination plants (although i get what you're saying of course), because we can just use large electrically powered condenser units to literally suck the water from the atmosphere where we need it.

The sun will do the business on the sea water, and we just condense it down right where we need it.

Same principle as taking an ice cold can of soda pop from the fridge on a hot day...it'll condense the water right out of the air.

Just had a look at the link showing the device...the actual device is a rip off of John Searls' work, the SEG.



Conensing water out of the atmospkere is already done by the weather.
Soda can condensation will not produce any significant amount to justify the
power consumption of a refigerating plant.

Lol but give John Searl his due, he's been at it for 40 yrs if I am not mistaken



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 
I am going to do some digging on this John. Sounds like he keeps busy with high end experiments. is he a professional scientists?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by paranormal78
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 
I am going to do some digging on this John. Sounds like he keeps busy with high end experiments. is he a professional scientists?



Haven't got anything against him personally.
He calls himself professor, his first composite roller costed 5 million pounds.
I think he is now based in thailand and was building a flying saucer
. Rumour has it he has served a prison sentence in the uk.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


John Searl is a crank, crackpot. He claims his invention levitated with so much force it went up through the roof of his house. Yet, for years people build their own versions of his crackpot device and all it does is spin magnets in a circle...

And yes, he went to jail for stealing energy... go figure.

Edit: lol I just realized, he really did find free energy...
edit on 13-3-2011 by boncho because: *ftw



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by GeeGee
 


Look, I've read so much through these sites about their experiments and their creators in the past two days than I can't separate them. What I noticed was that in general, a large number of them were making unsubstantiated claims. That is fraud. You say there are some good ones among the mix that have been posted in this thread. Fine. Maybe there are.


What makes it really difficult is that Zero Point Energy is (probably) real. The Casimir force has been measured (though later reinterpreted) and there is other good evidence that ZPE is possibly not a fiction. But note that ZPE does not equal free energy.

It's still disputed whether useful work can be extracted from ZPE. Some fairly serious scientists are actually working on trying to figure this out, if only to understand the universe better.

Scientific orthodoxy would probably have it that ZPE cannot be extracted. So scientists researching this field know that they are basically looking for new physics. The whole area is highly speculative.


Something else that has not been mentioned about the ZPE: we don't really know how much of it is there.

According to GR, if the energy density of the vacuum really was so stupendously high, the universe would be curled up into a tiny ball, since energy is a source of the gravitational field. There should be either zero or close to zero energy in the vacuum, according to GR. If there's a stupendous amount of it as ZPE proponents (Puthoff, Haisch, etc.) purport then GR would have to be very wrong. Since GR is the most successful physical theory we have, I'm gonna wager that it's unlikely that the energy density of the vacuum is high.

math.ucr.edu...



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join