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

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Regardless how many people see a green dot, there is no green dot. So 7 billion people seeing the green dot still wouldn't be enough to convince me there's a green dot, it only convinces me that they THINK there is, just like people THINK Bedini's clarifier works when it doesn't, that's just an audio illusion instead of an optical illusion.


Dude, if you see a green dot, then for you the green dot exists.
Now you're starting to get somewhere and may have unwittingly created a nice demo of why consciousness is an important factor in the equation.
So conventional science doesn't have an instrument to detect invisible green dots, but that doesn't stop us all from witnessing one




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by anumohi
but over unity isn't perpetual motion


yes it is actually, as if you feed the output into the input the device will keep running if it is overunity, so it is a perpetual motion device en.wikipedia.org...


WRONG! perpetual motion requires no maintenance and runs infinitely perpetually. there is no such device



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by anumohi
There are hundreds of over unity systems on youtube and all over the internet


and they all have the same thing in common - none of them are actually overunity!


Call them whatever you want, i call them free energy devices



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
Call them whatever you want, i call them free energy devices


Except that there are no such devices...



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 



Okay, Aim64C, how much research have you done into Bedini and Bearden and their theories on "Radiant Energy"?


Let's rephrase this to how much research I have done on the subject of energy and physics? A lot. In a lot of different segments, both structured education and unstructured (mostly unstructured through the internet). I tend to not restrict myself, and have taken the time to learn about a number of 'fringe' theories, particularly regarding electromagnetism.

The question shouldn't be how much research I have done regarding a given theory. It should be how much do I know about the concepts involved in the claims made by the theory.


There are good reasons why they use batteries instead of capacitors. The idea is that they are harvesting a new and different form of energy than what you are used to - "Radiant Energy".


A battery and capacitor are, for all intents and purposes, identical electronic components. A battery stores voltage potential in the form of chemical bonds while a capacitor stores voltage potential in the form of electrostatics. The batteries are not actually utilized in the over-unity mechanism - simply used to store power - an application where capacitors are identical - and more practical for power regulating and switching applications.


It manifests and works differently than normal current and you can't measure it like you would normal current. Nor can you use it to power loads directly.


This makes absolutely no sense, unless the theory is making the case that there is a "different form of current" that is capable of influencing the chemical reactions within a battery - while not being detectable in any other sense....

Which, honestly, I'd have to see that one to believe it.


But when you pipe the "Radiant" energy off to a battery, or a big bank of batteries, the Radiant energy triggers a reaction in the batteries and causes them to charge themselves up. Much better and faster than normal current does.


I presume it matters what type of battery is used. Lead-acid batteries are considerably different, being a wet-cell battery, than your dry-cell NiMH or Lithium-Polymer batteries. I suppose, since we are dealing with some kind of special current, we cannot use an inductor to temporarily store this power, either.


You will not see any kind of "over-unity" effect or energy gain in the system until you induce the secondary batteries to charge. The excess energy manifests in the secondary batteries.


And what are we seeing in terms of a charge? Let's say I put your average 2.4 Amp-Hour battery rated at 1.2 Volts into the supply-power of this thing, and connect four of the same (empty, no terminal voltage, bled through a resistor for a minimum of 12 hours prior) to the "charge" side of this device. How many watt-hours will each of those batteries contain by time the device ceases operation from the single 2.88 Watt-hour battery?

I'm not asking you to try and pressure you - but more as a way of demonstrating the type of thinking us electronics-savvy people do when we encounter these things. Any time someone claims it uses "special current" - I get suspicious (or special anything that avoids practical concerns). Maybe they really have stumbled upon something - but more than likely, it's just a way of saying: "I can only turn invisible when no one is looking."


Are you saying that Bedini and Friedrich are doing this? Where is your evidence?


It really kind of depends upon what they do. Honestly - if I buy a kit for something, I expect to get the kit and to take the risk that the device does what the makers designed it to do (which may not be what I -believe- it will do). Like I said - if I buy snake oil, at least I'm getting snake oil out of the deal.

I'm not familiar with these chaps' business model. However, I've seen plenty of other start-up 'companies' that claim to have zero-point energy and the like. They campaign around, asking for investments and disappear, in many cases. Others drag people out for years, suffer numerous 'accidents' and 'coercion' that prolong the "research" and "development" (even though they claim to already have a working device... it's just not ready yet.... go figure). Millions of dollars and a decade or so later, the investors are at a total loss while the 'business owners' retire to a summer residence in a resort community.

Legally, it's hard to bring someone up on charges for mishandling your investment in their company. Many of these people look far enough ahead to skirt around actions that could substantiate a case against them - so investors are, really, powerless to do anything about it.

It's no different than the 419 scams that came through your e-mail back at the turn of the century - they've got 70 million dollars to their Nigerian nobility and will give you a cut for sending them $200 to help them bribe government officials, or something. If you bite and send money - then another issue comes up, and another... -years- later, you're still sending money, and they are still encountering problems (there are cases of this happening - over years - people see a chance to improve their financial outlook with a comparatively low investment on their end and take it while disregarding the obvious).

So, eventually, people who use this method of scamming (for investors) will eventually destroy the scam, as it becomes more difficult to convince people you really are working on something, and the number of investors not seeing a return grows.

Which may be why certain individuals in this field of ... marketing ... avoid the investor strategy.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by anumohi
Call them whatever you want, i call them free energy devices


Except that there are no such devices...


they're friggen everywhere dude, you just dont want to believe, but thats ok.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C

A battery and capacitor are, for all intents and purposes, identical electronic components. A battery stores voltage potential in the form of chemical bonds while a capacitor stores voltage potential in the form of electrostatics. The batteries are not actually utilized in the over-unity mechanism - simply used to store power - an application where capacitors are identical - and more practical for power regulating and switching applications.



Ooops, you didn't get his post and obviously have not researched Bedini much.
Bedini is VERY clear that the battery is used to capture the radiant energy in what he claims is a chemical process, not an electical process.

I didn't read the rest of your post, as your experience and knowledge is irrelevant if you miss the fundamental point being made.

And oh dear, here I am still posting about Bedini, even though I said I wouldn't.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
they're friggen everywhere dude,


No they are not, no one here owns one, there are none in Australia, in fact the only people who have one that "works" is the people flogging kits and plans for them.... funny that, they are not even powering their own houses from them!
edit on 18-8-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 



Ooops, you didn't get his post and obviously have not researched Bedini much.
Bedini is VERY clear that the battery is used to capture the radiant energy in what he claims is a chemical process, not an electical process.


Batteries are electrochemical in nature. You don't really get to separate the two.


I didn't read the rest of your post, as your experience and knowledge is irrelevant if you miss the fundamental point being made.


By all means, consider the analysis of a component-level electronics technician irrelevant. I believe I've met the match to my own hubris.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   
OK, here's a freebie for all you interested tinkerers and inventors, and for the rest of you retards


Now keep in mind I'm so smart that i just thought this up while listening to all the dribble being spewed


Now understand that there are large rare earth/neodymium magnets that have over a thousand pounds of pull, lets say you have a bellow that's built like an air ride suspension on a tractor trailer, except this one has a coil spring inside. at one end is an electromagnet that has a ton or more of pull and at the other end a heavy steel plate.
now connected through the bellow and the steel plate is a woven pressure line that goes into a turbine that's connected to a generator, that's connected to a battery bank, that's connected to a 5000w power inverter, that's connected to a pair of limit switches, that's connected to the electromagnet ......are you all still with me????

do you understand????

Ok, you initially charge your battery's, you want the deep cycle marine batteries, 1000 cranking amp. which going to be connected to a 5000 watt power inverter, that stages off 2 limit switches to your electro-magnet, that's connected to your spring loaded pneumatic piston bellow. once you turn on the inverter it will send electricity to the magnet that will draw the bellow, that will spin the turbine rotor, thus turning the generator, which in turn charges a fresh battery bank, which you can either store, use as 12,24,48,Volts or convert to 110,220 through the inverter, and when the bellow is fully compressed, it touches off the limit switch which turns the magnet off long enough for it to return to its top position when the recoil spring inside the bellow returns it, then to trigger off the opposing limit switch which recycles the entire process.

simple enough for you??? its yours its free from me to you


I gave you building blocks now critique it to be your very own



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by anumohi
I gave you building blocks now critique it to be your very own


So you are using a battery through a very lossy system to charge another battery to power something....

much more efficient just to run everything off the first battery!



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
or you could just use an air tank with a pressure valve that's connected to a pneumatic impact gun connected to a permanent magnet motor like on a windmill, and reduce the size and initial cost



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by anumohi
I gave you building blocks now critique it to be your very own


So you are using a battery through a very lossy system to charge another battery to power something....

much more efficient just to run everything off the first battery!


that's why you critique the building blocks i gave you...i wrote it out in 10 minutes as it came to me



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
First things first, Arb explained the illusion incorrectly. The green dot DOES exist, it's when you stare at the cross, the blue dots disappear.


Originally posted by RogerT
Dude, if you see a green dot, then for you the green dot exists.

Right, except we're not concerned with subjective sensory illusions due to the way our brains filter out low priority information when tracking motion, we're concerned with objective measurements of over unity claims.


Now you're starting to get somewhere and may have unwittingly created a nice demo of why consciousness is an important factor in the equation.

Actually, we've taken a step backwards as you have taken an illogical leap into the realms of unsubstantiated non-sequiturs.


So conventional science doesn't have an instrument to detect invisible green dots, but that doesn't stop us all from witnessing one

Conventional science explains the illusion very well, hence the reason why we have a man-made example to demonstrate the illusionary effect in question.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Dude, you made the distinction yourself ("A battery stores voltage potential in the form of chemical bonds while a capacitor stores voltage potential in the form of electrostatics."), now you say there is no distinction. Which is it?

Bedini says something like "the radiant energy is extracted by the batteries in a chemical process", I think my assessment of his statement and your statement is fair.

You admit to not knowing much if anything about Bedini and his work, so from any reasonable angle it looked like you were shooting from the hip without having a grasp of the fundamental consideration that was being discussed.

I said your post is irrelevant IF you miss the fundamental point, which it clearly looks like you did (and still does, unless you'd like to explain how radiant energy driven chemical reactions that occur in lead acid accumulators would be identical to the reactions occuring in a capacitor).

Can you please be more clear in your communications if you don't want lay-people to misunderstand you.
edit on 18/8/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)
edit on 18/8/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I really didn't think you'd get the pointer. Never mind, was worth a try, and it wasn't aimed at you anyway.

ETA: Actually, I can add a little more...

You are obsessed with a concept you call objective, not realising that all reality that you personally percieve is subjective.
You claim that the conversation takes a step backwards when the subjective nature of over-unity comes into the equation, whereas all that has happened is the new information takes you personally further away from the conclusion you would like to arrive at. See how everything is actually subjective?

I've been on your side of the fence in the FE debate, there is no cheese over there, only a smug satisfaction that you think you are right and no-one can prove you wrong because they cannot show you what you insist they must show you.

You are onto a winner with a thread that challenges FE believers to show their own unit powering their household items. You didn't really expect some ATS junky was going to be sitting on a multi-trillion dollar device that could end world hunger and win them global recognition and fame, and simply using it to 'power their hair-dryer' did you?

Surely it was a rhetorical question, or was it just intended to be a troll thread. Either way, I don't get you are really wanting to learn something new here, but I'm willing to be surprised - you could start by checking out the links I posted.
edit on 18/8/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)


oh, and science may think it understands the invisible dot illusion, but in reality, we just understand enough of the mechanics to replicate the phenomenon. Just like the SSG experiment can replicate the radiant energy phenomenon, but not explain it. science does not have any kind of meter to measure the dot, you still need nature (your eyes) for that. If you think you really understand how reality is created, even illusory reality, please do enlighten me.
edit on 18/8/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I really didn't think you'd get the pointer. Never mind, was worth a try, and it wasn't aimed at you anyway.

Oh I get your point allright, shame it was not in any way grounded in science or critical thought. You attempted to hide behind the "everything's subjective" argument when unfortunately for you, it's rather easy to demonstrate that there is very much an objective reality all around us. Our perception is obviously subjective, but demonstrating over unity through empirical measurements is not. You then avoided any attempt at meaningful scientific discussion by alluding to new age woo hoo regarding consciousness. Post academic research from credible institutions if you wish to discuss science. Otherwise, see the other thread in my sig.


You are obsessed with a concept you call objective, not realising that all reality that you personally percieve is subjective.

if your subjective reality measures over unity when you cannot objectively demonstrate it, you are deluded or simply incorrect. This is the very reason that science relies on independent reproduction of result so we don't let our subjectivity blind us.


You claim that the conversation takes a step backwards when the subjective nature of over-unity comes into the equation

At this point I'm starting to think your understanding of the terms "subjective" and objectivee" is muddled and confused. There is NOTHING subjective about demonstrating objectively that a device operates as advertised. If you cannot objectively demonstrate such claims, your subjective interpretation is incorrect or the claims are false. We're not talking about perception or sensory response to external stimuli, we're talking about using tools to make objective, empirical measurements.


whereas all that has happened is the new information takes you personally further away from the conclusion you would like to arrive at.

You added no new information. Sorry.


See how everything is actually subjective?

Ever tripped over something in the dark? That's the good old objective reality triggering a subjective response. Taking subjective experience to the extremes and decrying "nothing can be objectively demonstrated because everything is subjective" is utterly meaningless in the real world. Clearly we can demonstrate phenomena as occurring objectively, as happens in scientific and technological research every day.


I've been on your side of the fence in the FE debate, there is no cheese over there, only a smug satisfaction that you think you are right and no-one can prove you wrong because they cannot show you what you insist they must show you.

Actually, it would be very easy to prove me wrong, as I have explained previously in this thread and my OP. Notice that my argument is falsifiable.


You are onto a winner with a thread that challenges FE believers to show their own unit powering their household items. You didn't really expect some ATS junky was going to be sitting on a multi-trillion dollar device that could end world hunger and win them global recognition and fame, and simply using it to 'power their hair-dryer' did you?

And why not? Otherwise, their belief is purly faith-based, not evidence-based.


Surely it was a rhetorical question, or was it just intended to be a troll thread.

People such as yourself get prickly about this thread because your belief is being challenged. My thread continues to serve the very purpose it was started for: demonstrating that believers in over unity cannot substantiate their belief.


Either way, I don't get you are really wanting to learn something new here, but I'm willing to be surprised - you could start by checking out the links I posted.

I've learnt a lot, unfortunately not much about the science of over unity because none has been posted. See my other thread in my sig for playing the science game.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   

oh, and science may think it understands the invisible dot illusion, but in reality, we just understand enough of the mechanics to replicate the phenomenon. Just like the SSG experiment can replicate the radiant energy phenomenon, but not explain it. science does not have any kind of meter to measure the dot, you still need nature (your eyes) for that. If you think you really understand how reality is created, even illusory reality, please do enlighten me

Science DOES explain such sensory illusions as we have a very good understanding of why and how they occur. Scientists DID use tools to perform objective measurements into the limitations of visual perception, hence a demonstration such as that animated gif exists. Do some homework before tarnishing scientific understanding with your own ignorance. Not that this is any way on topic...
edit on 18-8-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
First things first, Arb explained the illusion incorrectly. The green dot DOES exist, it's when you stare at the cross, the blue dots disappear.


Originally posted by RogerT
Dude, if you see a green dot, then for you the green dot exists.

Right, except we're not concerned with subjective sensory illusions due to the way our brains filter out low priority information when tracking motion, we're concerned with objective measurements of over unity claims.
I was trying to support your post here:


Originally posted by john_bmth
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.
I really think illusions are relevant to the over-unity field, because many experimenters actually find an illusion that their devices are over unity. They don't have the scientific tools and critical thinking skills to realize where their errors are.

And I was trying to emphasize that it doesn't matter how many people see the same illusion, whether it's the green dot, or an over unity measurement, or the effect of Bedini's clarifier.

And while I'm the first person to admit my explanation of the illusion was imperfect, I's say perhaps it was incomplete rather than wrong. You illustrated my point perfectly by saying I was wrong and there really is a green dot.

No. There...is...no...green...dot. You see one, but it simply doesn't exist. That's why the number of people seeing the same illusion doesn't make it real.

www.biotele.com...


In this optical illusion you can notice a green circling dot, if you fixate your gaze on the cross. The green dot does not exist in the picture proper but is produced by the retina as an afterimage complimentary in color to the magenta dots -Biotele
The only dots in the illusion are magenta, and all they do is flash on and off. (Not sure where you got blue from, are you color blind or just didn't know what that color was called?)

The reason the color optical illusion is a helpful illustration is, if people can misperceive something as simple as whether there's a green dot or not, just think how many more opportunities there are to make misperceptions when doing something much more complicated like trying to measure the input and output of an over-unity device. So my point was, no matter how many people say they've measured an over-unity device and it works, if they aren't scientists (or similar critical thinkers), the number is irrelevant. It's even easier to fool yourself with a voltmeter and see over-unity where it doesn't exist, than it is to see green dots where they don't exist. And it's pretty easy to see the green dots.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Oooh, gotcha. You're right, there's transparency artefacts when the purple dots disappear so I assumed it was due to the non-existent green dot being incorrectly mapped over the purple ones.

But in any case, I understand your use of the illusion to demonstrate sensory misdirection yielding false positives. I am not denying this, rather I am strongly disputing Roger's implication that "everything is subjective, ergo over unity exists".





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join