Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...

Originally posted by john_bmth
Wow. Just... wow

And people think this guy's legit?

There are a lot of positive reviews out there, enough to make me suspect they aren't all written by Bedini shills (though I can't be sure about that).

After studying the Placebo effect, we've seen that taking a sugar pill that doesn't really have any particular medicinal power can actually change someone's health through the power of mind. Given that, it's not hard to imagine that some people genuinely do perceive a difference after using the clarifier, not because there is a true difference but because their mind tells them to expect a difference, so they hear one.

So it's a clever psychological trick, using our own minds against us, a sinister plot, both evil and somewhat brilliant at the same time. But someone who thinks they can hear the difference would quickly have their fallacy exposed in the Jref challenge, where you wouldn't really know which discs had been treated and which ones hadn't. In that case the mental self-deception fails and the fraud is exposed. But I suspect Bedini knows that too and he and his clarifier users would avoid the Jref million dollar challenge at all costs.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If I recall, Bedini's experimenter kit costs thousands of dollars.

For the heavy duty 10-coil unit, yes.

They have other kits for other units that are cheaper.

Or, if you're really determined to save money, you can get the parts list and shop for all the parts yourself; you don't have to buy the parts from them.

As was already pointed out by another poster, the SSG experiment which RogerT did only costs around $50-100.

So, you don't HAVE to spend thousands of dollars, if you just want to experiment a bit and see if the concept works.

But if we want something that's going to be powerful enough to power a house, then the 10-coil unit is the best choice IMHO.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


That's why any audio tests that aren't double-blind are moot. Psychacoustics and expectation bias can do crazy things.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
There are a lot of positive reviews out there, enough to make me suspect they aren't all written by Bedini shills (though I can't be sure about that).

So now ALL of Bedini's supporters, in online forums all over the internet, and on Youtube, and at the TeslaTech conferences, etc etc - now they are all "Bedini shills"?

You seriously think that Bedini is somehow organizing and maintaining an army of thousands of "shills" to fraudulently promote his stuff for him?

See, now the conspiracy theories that you have to invent in order to debunk him are even more outrageous than the conspiracy theory that Big Oil is suppressing the technology!

reply to post by cupocoffee


Somewhere in this thread (or another thread) I posted a list of forums where people earnestly discuss fairy sightings in their gardens. Ive also seen hotels booked out for angel conventions where they discuss angel sightings.

reply to post by john_bmth


What is your point, john_b?

I don't see anyone accusing these fairy or angel people of being paid shills.

reply to post by cupocoffee


I thought it was fairly simple to extrapolate my point but evidently you are not prepared to flex that muscle between your ears so I'll have to state it explicitly: just because people enthusiastically discuss and compare notes on a subject it doesn't make it true or valid, any more than people enthusiastically discussing angel or fairy sightings.

reply to post by john_bmth


So if 1000 people get together and agree amongst themselves that they have all seen some kind of angelic or celestial being - or, a fairy, or a ghost, or a UFO, or an alien, or whatever - then that can't mean anything, because you, john_b, think it's silly?

So you are now the ultimate arbiter of what's True and what's not, john_b?

reply to post by cupocoffee


I am not the arbitrator, the EVIDENCE is. Seeing as the claim of over unity is extraordinary, it requires EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE. Here is a list of sources that are NOT extraordinary evidence:

1) websites
2) forums/discussion boards
3) mailing lists
4) videos
5) marketing literature

Extraordinary evidence would be in the form of multiple, INDEPENDENT lab tests from accredited institutions performed by qualified technicians, where upon the tests will be made public for all to see. If there's "thousands" of people using these "products", this would be trivial to achieve. Yet it hasn't. Funny, that.

Originally posted by john_bmth
I am not the arbitrator, the EVIDENCE is.

And at what point does a LARGE BODY OF WITNESSES AND SUPPORTERS become EVIDENCE?

If we could survey every person on Earth and 1 Billion people say they've seen an angel, would you not agree that that would be a statistically significant number of people and it would count as EVIDENCE that angels exist?

So, how many witnesses and supporters does Bedini need to have before you will agree that something's actually going on? 1000? 10,000? 1,000,000?

If they make something like the SSG experiment public, and they have say 500 people respond and say it was successful, (I don't know the actual numbers), why doesn't that count as EVIDENCE?

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

Somewhere in this thread (or another thread) I posted a list of forums where people earnestly discuss fairy sightings in their gardens. Ive also seen hotels booked out for angel conventions where they discuss angel sightings.

Hey, now you're getting into subjects you're really not qualified to comment on. Leave the fairies alone

Why hasn't anyone commented on the Ralph Ring interview I posted a link to?

Are you guys really interested in learning something about FE tech or would you rather just argue about whether Bedini is legit or not?

If it's the latter, I don't think I'll be posting here again, it's getting really really really boring :snore:

I mean, Bedini's stuff is soooooo low-tech, uninspiring and just plain dull!

Now if you'd like to talk about Schauberger's repulsine, or Carr's levitating discs, this discussion might get a bit more interesting. It's also where it gets a bit beyond the electrical engineers, and people start using words like 'consciousness' and 'vortex' and 'laws of nature', so we might lose some of the posters (particularly the ones that don't believe in fairies )

reply to post by cupocoffee


If there's thousands of "witnesses", why no independent lab tests? You seem to be struggling with the idea of "evidence", more specifically "extraordinary evidence". If, as you say, thousands of people are powering electrical appliances perpeptually, it would be trivial to get an independent lab to certify that over unity is taking place. Then they could sell a proper, certified product. Yet they don't. The fact that you think the gossip in a website or mailing list is extraordinary evidence says a lot about your gullibility.

reply to post by RogerT


RogerT, I have heard of Ralph Ring and Carr and all those people. I do have an interest in those things.

But, could we at ATS pool some money and talent and reproduce their technology right now? Probably not.

I keep going back to Bedini simply because he's the only one who has open-sourced anything. If some real effort were made, to organize a real test, we could actually replicate the tech, and that would go a long way toward settling the debate.

Do you know of anyone else who offers an open-source product ready to be tested?

reply to post by cupocoffee


Why would you need tests when there's "thousands of witnesses"? Put your money where your mouth is. By a kit and pay someone local to build it for you.

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

If there's thousands of "witnesses", why no independent lab tests? You seem to be struggling with the idea of "evidence", more specifically "extraordinary evidence". If, as you say, thousands of people are powering electrical appliances perpeptually, it would be trivial to get an independent lab to certify that over unity is taking place. Then they could sell a proper, certified product. Yet they don't. The fact that you think the gossip in a website or mailing list is extraordinary evidence says a lot about your gullibility.

First of all, I did not say that "thousands of people are powering electrical appliances perpetually".

I said that the technology charges up batteries like mad.

You still have to manually replace or recharge the batteries when they run out, so it's not "perpetual".

And, obviously, it won't work on things that plug into an outlet instead of using batteries.

As for the independent lab test thing. I do get it that you want to see independent lab tests, certifications from independent engineers, publications in major scientific journals, etc.

"If it really works, it should be easy to get engineers to certify it."

Well, in theory yes, but in practice, no. In practice, it's more like "Who wants to be the first to stick their neck out and get Galileo'd?"

But I know you will just laugh and and pretend like scientific suppression like that doesn't really happen; which is why I have tried to stick with the information that's publicly available and not get into the conspiracy aspect....

reply to post by cupocoffee


Firstly, if it is over unity, it generates more electricity than it uses, thus it can power an appliance perpeptually. Secondly, they're already "sticking their neck out" by selling kits and having "1000s of witnesses". Your arguments simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

Originally posted by john_bmth
Firstly, if it is over unity, it generates more electricity than it uses, thus it can power an appliance perpeptually.

No.

As I already told you, the technology requires batteries. Batteries still need to be replaced or recharged when they run out.

It is NOT "perpetual" in any way.

Even if you could rig up some sort of little battery pack that keeps itself charged up, and also converts to 120V AC to power an appliance, it STILL would not be "perpetual", because it would have moving parts, and moving parts eventually wear out and need to be replaced.

Hence them holding out until they have perfected solid-state versions of the technology.

Secondly, they're already "sticking their neck out" by selling kits and having "1000s of witnesses". Your arguments simply do not hold up to scrutiny.

Exactly, guys like Bedini and Friedrich have stuck their neck out - and look at how they are treated! Just in this thread alone, we have guys like you and Arbitrageur chanting "Fraudsters. Con men. Snake-oil Salesmen...."

Now multiply that same treatment over thousands of threads and many different forums....

The people who are brave enough to stick their neck out don't have engineers lining up at their door to certify the technology - instead they tend to get ridiculed, attacked, accused, ostracized.

And you yourself have participated in that in this very thread, john_b. You are just as guilty of perpetuating the stigma against this technology as all the rest...

Originally posted by cupocoffee
reply to post by RogerT

 

RogerT, I have heard of Ralph Ring and Carr and all those people. I do have an interest in those things.

But, could we at ATS pool some money and talent and reproduce their technology right now? Probably not.

I keep going back to Bedini simply because he's the only one who has open-sourced anything. If some real effort were made, to organize a real test, we could actually replicate the tech, and that would go a long way toward settling the debate.

Do you know of anyone else who offers an open-source product ready to be tested?

No I don't know of any open source tech right now that the layman can reproduce.

The problem with this stuff (IMO), is that the guys who actually understood how to make it work, were of a level of consciousness beyond your average electical engineer or ATS poster. Carr is reputed to have been very insistent on the human consciousness being an integral part of the 'device'. Apparently, he used resonance, light, crystals and well trained pilots who were able to 'get their minds out of the way' to make the X1 do its thing.

I don't think anyone posting on ATS has the talent for this. There were one or two I admired greatly, like Freezer, who seemed capable and on the right path, but they don't seem to be around anymore. Personally, if I had the capacity to understand nature, the way Schauberger, Tesla, Carr and others have done, the last place you'd find me is skulking around ATS forums, arguing with people whose grasp of what's possible is summed up by statements like "it breaks the second law of thermodynamics", "you can't get something for nothing" and now my personal favorite: "Mother Nature enforces the laws of physics".

Schauberger's repulsine has been attempted countless times with little success that I'm aware of, although I heard a guy in Cal. had cracked it and am still waiting for confirmation. Ralph has stated that they are not far away and expect to be giving demos by the end of the year. We'll see.

My opinion on Bedini, and it's just an opinion, is that he's genuine, a bit kooky (which of these public FE inventors isn't) and quite brilliant in his chosen field, but he hasn't got any kind of FE device working yet. He's found a way to demonstrate a phenomenon he calls 'radiant energy' which is his term and relates to what he thinks Tesla was talking about (I doubt he understands it well, if at all), and that has made him both popular and open to ridicule.

The whole battery bank thing was a dead end as far as I'm concerned. I mean, who really wants that kind of hassle. I know he was working on using caps. a few years back, but it doesn't look like that came through as yet.
If/When Bedini cracks it, you'll hear about it with a lot of fanfare from the yahoo groups and a lot of others who watch him closely, until then, the $4000 machine is probably worth getting and building if you're into that sort of thing, but it's not going to cause much upset at GE or BP!

If Bedini had got a FE working model up, no doubt he'd have had the big black truck full of fbi dudes with semi-automatics show up to close his lab, business, office and gang down, just like the few stories you here from credible sources can attest.

I've never cared for Bearden, but that doesn't mean anything either.

All just one man's opinion, but you did ask.

quote]
No.

As I already told you, the technology requires batteries. Batteries still need to be replaced or recharged when they run out.

It is NOT "perpetual" in any way.
Wait... so it's battery powered? So what exactly is "over unity" about a battery powered device? Either it generates more power than it consumes or it doesn't. There is absolutely no reason for batteries to enter the equation what so ever.