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

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

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

I think that to many non-scientists, reality does seem subjective and people who see the green dot may think it does exist because they see it. They don't want to understand the scientific explanation about how it's a defect of human vision that produces it. In fact we see plenty of subjective realities expressed on ATS so Roger isn't alone.

But the point you keep raising in this thread about whether you can power your appliances in your house with it or not, does a lot to separate the illusion from the reality. An experimenter may fool themselves with a voltmeter into thinking the device is over-unity, but when they try to take their house off the grid with that illusion, they find that a subjective reality can only do so much. So far, it hasn't been able to power anybody's house that we know of.




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I'm not playing YOUR science game, despite your many efforts to get everyone to conform to YOUR version of reality.
yes, in your world, everything you say and believe is 100% right, fortunately for me, I don't live in YOUR world.

Again, please demonstrate something you think is objective reality, without any subjective reference. I haven't thought this one through, just going on instinct. My instinct tells me you won't be able to do it and will have to rely on rhetoric like 'in the real world' whatever THAT means.

At least we got the thread off Bedini and your rather smug rhetorical setup, that's an improvement.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

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)


Yawn, more assertions without backup. I asked you to explain if you think you can, not re-assert what you think is true.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Roger's implication that "everything is subjective, ergo over unity exists".


Errr, where did I imply that? Another good example of the subjective nature of reality. In my reality, your sentence above is completely inaccurate, in yours it's true.
Now we can argue about who is right, or we can accept that reality is subjective.
Perhaps you can get a scientist or a scientific implement to measure my implication to obectively prove your point



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Ok, I'll give it one last shot but I'm not hopeful


I know a guy who can walk through intense fire without getting burned, in fact, he can hold my hand and take me through the flames and I won't get burned. Now, he can tell you how he does it, and I'll wager my life-savings that even with the knowlege, you won't be able to.

Now, is the experience subjective or objective?
Is he a con or a snake oil salesman because you don't have the level of consciousness to replicate his experiment?

You can choose any one of thousands of similar, well documented 'beyond the scope of scientific understanding' events or demonstrations, I just picked this one because of personal experience and familiarity.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Hi Aim64C,



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.


Okay, if you watch the "Energy from the Vacuum" videos, Bedini says that it's the chemicals in the battery that interact with the Radiant energy and trigger the battery to charge itself. He says that a battery is the only thing he has ever found that can convert Radiant energy into standard current.

You may be able to use capacitors too; I honestly don't know. That would be another question to ask the actual inventors...



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....


Correct, that is the theory. You have it exactly! Bedini claims that he has discovered (or really, Nikola Tesla discovered) a new form of energy - "Radiant" energy. It's almost like the opposite of normal current.

It's like an etheric "gas", or Plasma. It's cool, instead of hot, and you can't measure it in terms of volts and amps like you would normal current.

But when you pipe it off to a battery, he says the chemicals in the battery interact with the Radiant energy and trigger the battery to charge itself up like mad. And you can have like 20 batteries in sequence and the Radiant energy can charge them all up at the same time.




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


Exactly. It's something that you pretty much have to see in person to believe. You can't really prove it to skeptics in online forums - unless you can convince them to actually try the experiment themselves




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?


That is a very good question. I've often wondered that myself.

I suppose it depends on what type of batteries you're using, and how many, for one thing.

That would be another thing to ask Bedini and Friedrich directly, or some of their supporters in other forums. I don't think anyone around here can answer that.




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.


Open-sourcing works much better for this kind of technology. You are right, the inventors who try to go the usual route always seem to run into some kind of bureaucratic brick wall.

It's almost as if "someone" out there does not want these devices mass produced......


So, again, I think the fact that Bedini and Friedrich are the only ones offering an open-source kit (to the best of my knowledge) works to their credit.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I'm not playing YOUR science game, despite your many efforts to get everyone to conform to YOUR version of reality.

As much as I'd love to take credit for the good work of the entire scientific community, alas I cannot. You want to talk science? Fine, post up the science. Otherwise, you're not talking science.


yes, in your world, everything you say and believe is 100% right, fortunately for me, I don't live in YOUR world.

You must have missed Arb's post above yours where he challenged an assertion I made and demonstrated it to be false. This caused me to rectify my stance and change my opinion. I have no problem with being wrong, so long as my arguments are refuted with good science and sound reasoning.


Again, please demonstrate something you think is objective reality, without any subjective reference. I haven't thought this one through, just going on instinct. My instinct tells me you won't be able to do it and will have to rely on rhetoric like 'in the real world' whatever THAT means.

Your argument is not new, what you describe is Solipism
. Whilst it provides some interesting thought experiments, it is utterly meaningless in any practical sense. Such philosophical discussions are not only waaaay off topic but we can clearly objectively demonstrate empirical claims for all practical intents and purposes. For example, the fact we are conversing through this website clearly demonstrates that TCP/IP is a valid and practical protocol for inter-network communication. It also demonstrates, amongst other things, that fibre optics, coax cable and electromagnetic radiation are valid and practical mediums for digital communication. And so on.



At least we got the thread off Bedini and your rather smug rhetorical setup, that's an improvement.

Ironically enough, that IS a subjective interpretation. All I have asked us for believers to substantiate their claims. If you perceive that as smug then you are having an unhealthy psychological response to my words and message.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


Google it yourself. I'm posting on a mobile phone, I have neither the time nor the inclination to go searching and pasting when you are more than capable yourself.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Roger's implication that "everything is subjective, ergo over unity exists".


Errr, where did I imply that? Another good example of the subjective nature of reality. In my reality, your sentence above is completely inaccurate, in yours it's true.
Now we can argue about who is right, or we can accept that reality is subjective.
Perhaps you can get a scientist or a scientific implement to measure my implication to obectively prove your point

It's called "paraphrasing", and in my post above I have explained why sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "everything is subjective!" is not only off topic but utterly meaningless in any practical sense and a weak defence if wild claims. Look into scientific method if you wish to learn more. In the meantime, stay on topic.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT

At least we got the thread off Bedini and your rather smug rhetorical setup, that's an improvement.


Hey, at least Bedini technologies are on topic for this thread....



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by RogerT
 


This is completely off topic. We can clearly demonstrate any inventor's claims for his device in an objective manner. It goes on all the time. It's not only how scientific and technological research is performed but also how government watchdogs can haul people up in false advertising charges. That is what is pertinent to this discussion, not philosophical discussions.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


Not really, unless anyone cares to provide irrefutable evidence that their devices work as advertised. If not, then it's off-topic.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Ah, great. No one around here can do what you demand, so this is now the Nothing thread again.

Thanks for Nothing, john_b.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


If an argument goes round in circles, it's time to get back on topic. You dont like that? Don't post, it's as simple as that.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Done. Only came back into the thread to respond to Aim64C's very good questions.

Go ahead and get the last word now....



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Just found this. Some in the thread might find this useful:



Discovery

Tesla’s radiant energy discovery was actually the discovery of negative energy, before the term was even born. To differentiate its peculiar behavior from that of ordinary positive energy, Tesla called his new energy "radiant" energy. It later appears as negative energy in advanced theory such as quantum field theory, but was arbitrarily discarded (wrongly) by leading scientists who mostly hated negative energy. Today, proof that this elimination of negative energy was a scientific error of first magnitude is rigorously demonstrated and published in leading journals by Dan Solomon and his colleagues.

* front.math.ucdavis.edu...
* eprintweb.org...
* arxiv.org...
* arxiv.org...
* www.cheniere.org...
* www.cheniere.org...
* [1]


Source
edit on 18-8-2011 by cupocoffee because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-8-2011 by cupocoffee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Someone on here mentioned Ralph Ring.
I was by his website and if he has got a device / and or a flying disc, I would like to physically see it.
I also read the transcript of his interview with Kerry cassidy of Project Camelot ( Known to interview mostly
comedian hoaxters )
Something does not ring true about OTCs and Ralph Ring. The way Ralph mentions TPTB operates is simply not true. They dont make hollow threats.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
OK, I get the picture, this is John's thread and if we want to post in it, we have to abide by John's world view, John's definitions on everything from science to nature, and most of all John's opinion of what's on topic and what isn't. We can dispute a few minor details as long as we bring John's perception of acceptable scientific reference to the comment, otherwise don't bother attempting any other form of contribution.

No fun here, I'm out. Note to self, stay away from threads by John.
Good luck debating with and learning from people who think just like you do, John. Although the debating and learning thing doesn't seem to be your bag now does it?

Ciao cupofcoffee, good luck here, but to be honest, you've been flogging a dead horse for countless pages now and just bumping a fairly mundane thread along. If you're for real with the offer of $4000 sponsorship, I recommend you start a thread and I'll be happy to come support it as one of the few, if not only, ATS members who has practical experience with Bedini's models.

Ciao Arb, I think I would have enjoyed a more metaphysical conversation with you, and I respect as always your science head, rooted firmly in 3D reality, but this OP moderation is a little too oppressive for my taste.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


Why don't you ask him personally, it really isn't that difficult to do

Feckin' drive by posters pulling statements out of there arse, as if they're in bed with the man!
This thread has really attracted some class, good job John. I need to go look in the mirror and chastize myself for being a complete dick yet again!
edit on 18/8/11 by RogerT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by RogerT
Ciao cupofcoffee, good luck here, but to be honest, you've been flogging a dead horse for countless pages now and just bumping a fairly mundane thread along. If you're for real with the offer of $4000 sponsorship, I recommend you start a thread and I'll be happy to come support it as one of the few, if not only, ATS members who has practical experience with Bedini's models.


Thanks RogerT.

But I am growing very, very weary of "flogging the dead horse", as you so neatly put it.

I would really only be willing to contribute funds toward such a project if it were an official undertaking of the ATS community, with the full blessing of the Staff, and other ATS members volunteering their time and energy and helping with the testing, camera work, editing etc etc.

But there is pretty much zero chance of that ever happening. I don't think the Staff like me very much, and they do not listen to anything I say.

Mark and Bill will continue to ignore this issue and refuse to comment on it no matter how many threads are started or how many times it's brought up, I can almost guarantee you that. It truly is "the dead horse".

I'm tired. I give up.

Might as well leave the "over unity" work to the groups and sites who specialize in it like overunity.com or energeticforum.com. ATS just isn't the right environment for this kind of thing.





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join