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

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by anumohi
 

If there is a key to low energy or zero input propulsion the my guess is that magnetism is the key. A magnet continues to exert the same force even after it has caused motion... That is highly significant surely?
Not really that significant. Doesn't gravity do the same thing? I can roll cars down hills all day, the supply of gravity never seems to run out.

Of course, but the difference with magnetism is that we can control it. We can flick a switch and turn off electromagnets, we can alter the structure of other magnets and change the magnetic field and there are some interesting properties regarding certain liquids in motion I believe. Then there is piezomagnetism and magnetostriction, where motion can be caused by applying a magnetic field and vice versa. I think cobolt is significant regarding zero or low input propulsion.

I am not suggesting that the laws of physics need to be broken. It is a total nonsense to assume that novel propulsion breaks any physical laws. For alternative propulsion to be useful all that matters is that we can use the energy available all around us. For example, the Earth will not stop turning just because we start to harness energy from it's magnetic field using piezomagnetic crystals. The source of the magnetism is there if we can find ways of using it. Likewise, the space surrounding every atom is teeming with energy that we have yet to exploit.

"Free" energy technologies are heavily suppressed by oil companies who have the money to snap up any significant patents.




posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In answer to the OP, the reason nobody has built one is because they don't work. Actually one of the moderators on ATS (I forget which one) said he's been working on them, and seems to think it's just a matter of trial and error and experimentation.

From my perspective, I don't need to build one to know what will happen any more than I need to take a stopwatch with me to time how long it takes a rock to hit the ground after I drop it...I already know how long it will take, just as I already know what will happen with practically every over-unity system I've seen where the plans are openly available.


How do you know none of them work, when you haven't tested any of them yourself?

And yeah, the ATS mod says he's working on it - then we never hear from him again. Zorgon and Matyas' group say they are working on it - but they have no finished product to offer either.

Meanwhile very obvious, public avenues of investigation like the Steven Jones' proof-of-principle experiment or the readily available, open-source Bedini kit are ignored....



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I said it once on here and I’ll say it again.

If the free energy devices are being bought up by the big conglomerates, they would use them themselves.

Example:
I built a generator that produces free electricity and sold it to some big company, they would construct the devices and sell the electricity to the masses at large. They don’t have to sell the devices just the output.
Think about it. No longer do they have to purchase coal and have it delivered to the power plant. No longer do they have to deal with the EPA and all those restrictions and add on stack scrubbers. All of their input costs drop to almost zero. But all the while they are still selling the same amount of electricity for the same price. Astronomical profit! Why would they just put it on a shelf?

The mere fact that they are still buying coal and gas says they have no such devices.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


Funny how the people on these very boards who have tried have had no luck so yet again we have to rely on "friend of a friend" information. Why does NO-ONE on these boards own one, if as you say, the plans are on the internet? How many members does this board have? Yet nothing. As usual.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth

Funny how the people on these very boards who have tried have had no luck so yet again we have to rely on "friend of a friend" information.


That's not entirely true; for example, member RogerT once tried the "SchoolGirl Motor" experiment and reported positive results. Seems like that was ignored too...




Why does NO-ONE on these boards own one, if as you say, the plans are on the internet?


Because no one has bought one yet!

Why don't you buy one, john_bmth?



How many members does this board have? Yet nothing. As usual.


I agree with you. We should be able to do better than this.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by john_bmth

Funny how the people on these very boards who have tried have had no luck so yet again we have to rely on "friend of a friend" information.


That's not entirely true; for example, member RogerT once tried the "SchoolGirl Motor" experiment and reported positive results. Seems like that was ignored too...

Is he completely off the grid? If not, why not? It's "free energy", after all.




Because no one has bought one yet!

Why don't you buy one, john_bmth?

Why would I spend money on something I believe to be a fraud?
Why don't you buy one and let us know how you get on? You believe they exist, so why are you still paying for electricity?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
Is he completely off the grid? If not, why not? It's "free energy", after all.


I don't know, john_bmth. You should ask him that.

I agree with you though - we should try and get somebody's house running off the grid. Even if just for a month or a week. Just as a test run.




Why would I spend money on something I believe to be a fraud?
Why don't you buy one and let us know how you get on? You believe they exist, so why are you still paying for electricity?


We're going in circles now, john_bmth.

I could buy one, but I am not an engineer, nor do I have a lab and equipment to test with.

Don't you think this little plan would work a lot better if we involve some actual engineers, instead of leaving it with random internet blogger guy?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
If the free energy devices are being bought up by the big conglomerates, they would use them themselves.

Most of the money the big players make is not from selling Electricity - it is from selling fuel. If you owned oil/coal companies you would have the power to own important stakes in the customer companies. That gives you control of the worlds major energy markets, especially if alternatives are stifled. Look into this yourself if you don't believe me. The web linking these guys is fascinating.

If cheap alternative techs become widely available the words economy would never be the same again. If you were part of a cable of 300 families who run this show would you want that to happen?
edit on 22/7/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   


COEUR d’ALENE — The latest products and prototypes in energy saving will be the focus of an upcoming convention attracting large overseas governments looking to save money, clean energy enthusiasts and hobbyists, among others

At the Renaissance Free Energy Convention, which will be held July 29-31, at The Coeur d’Alene Resort, attendees will learn how they can power their homes, vehicles and other energy-consuming products on a new alternative energy technology and how to restore most useless batteries.
*

The technology will be demonstrated, and hands-on workshops will be conducted where samples of the technology will be replicated alongside inventor John Bedini and his associates.

Bedini, of Hayden, is an expert in semiconductors and audio systems, and is the vice president of research and development at Energenx Inc.

Energenx is the parent company of Renaissance Charge LLC, of Hayden, which is hosting the convention. Renaissance Charge engages in research and development and sells battery chargers and motor generators.

It has customers worldwide, with about half of them in the U.S. and Canada.

Rick Friedrich, general manager of Renaissance Charge, said the first day of the convention will include demonstrations of Energenx’s patented motor generator.

The second day will include the workshops.

The final day will include demonstrations of the battery chargers, and a keynote presentation by Bedini.


Source
www.bonnercountydailybee.com...



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
I'm not going to do all the work for you but here are some clues as to where these technologies could go.


Piezoelectric and piezomagnetic materials are common transducer materials. They used to be used separately. Recently, various composites and laminates of piezoelectric and piezomagnetic materials have been developed. *snip* Potentially these new materials and structures can be used for magnetic field sensors, current sensors, energy harvesters, transformers, and ME filters, as well as phase shifters.
*snip*
It is shown (in the work covered by the article) that such a structure can be used to harvest magnetic energy and convert it to electric energy.
(emphasis Pimanders)

APPLIED PHYSICS LETTERS 95, 013511 (2009)


So we already have technologies that can harvest magnetism. Imagine the possibilities if we could run arrays of these to power everyday devices. No plug required.

edit on 22/7/11 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pimander

Originally posted by samkent
If the free energy devices are being bought up by the big conglomerates, they would use them themselves.

Most of the money the big players make is not from selling Electricity - it is from selling fuel....]


There's around 115 million households in the US according to the Census*.


* The average residential monthly bill is $95.66 Read more: www.motherearthnews.com...


115 million times 95.66 is:ten billion nine hundred five million two hundred forty thousand.

Now times that by twelve (months in the year)....

one hundred thirty billion eight hundred sixty-two million eight hundred eighty thousand.





A hundred and thirty billion industry sounds pretty good to me...



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cupocoffee

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I already know what will happen with practically every over-unity system I've seen where the plans are openly available.
How do you know none of them work, when you haven't tested any of them yourself?
Because of an amazing discipline that we owe much of our modern world to:

Engineering.

That's what engineers do. They design things. It used to be on paper but now it's in computer models. They run calculations to predict what the device will do if it's built. If they don't like what it does according to the calculations, they make changes to it, re-run the calculations, and see if they get better results. Now how do they really know the device will do what they think it will do? There's a video that will give you some idea.

The phase of the engineering process that performs that function is called design validation or verification. Here is a dramatic example of that on a Boeing wing test:

Boeing 777 Wing Test


The expected outcome of the test is that the wing wouldn't fail until something like 150% of the design load limit. The wing failed at 154% of the design load limit. so did the model predict exactly where it would break? No, but the results are so close to what the model predicted that we can say the model was pretty accurate.

cupocoffee, you may not realize it, but what you see in that wing test happens over and over and over again in less dramatic design validation tests all over the world every day. And they almost always have the same result, the design validation validates that it does what the computer model said it would do. I said almost.

When the validation outcome doesn't match the expected outcome from the engineering model, there can be several reasons for that. In some cases, the cause could be that the material has an unexpected impurity or other defect that wasn't in the design specifications. In other cases, the engineers might go back to their calculations or model and find that they need to tweak the model. But in no cases I can think of, did they go back and say there's a new law of physics they've discovered that explains why it didn't perform as expected. The type of modeling which can predict wing breakage that accurately is very sophisticated, and the fact that wing test performed as it did is a stunning example of engineering achievement due to the complexity of all the variables involved in that performance test.

The overunity device plans I've seen are much, much simpler to apply engineering principles to when compared to the wing test, and predict the expected outcome of the device without building it. So my predicting the outcome of an OU device without building it is really not much of an accomplishment at all. The much more amazing accomplishment is predicting the exact load at which the wings will break. That is much harder to do, yet we can still do it, maybe not with 100% accuracy, but with a relatively high level of accuracy.

The people that feel they need to build devices for themselves to verify it are in a way saying that they don't trust the engineering process. But here's a thought on that. Do those same people drive over bridges? Because bridges are built entirely on engineering principles. There is no "design validation" like with the Boeing wing test, meaning they don't build a preliminary bridge, and pile weights on it until the bridge collapses, to verify that the bridge will withstand the load they think it will. No they just build the real final bridge, and they never actually perform any failure test to determine the actual load that will cause the bridge to break.

Now what is the success rate with bridges? I can think of one bridge that didn't perform as expected, which is the Tacoma Narrows bridge. So one miss, out of all the bridges that have been built means the success rate for knowing what a design will do without even testing it is extremely high.

So in other words, if you have to build one of these things to prove what it will do, you probably shouldn't be crossing any bridges, because it means you don't trust engineering. Nobody has ever tested the bridge to see exactly where it will break.

If you trust bridges and think engineers can't predict what will happen from a set of blueprints, then that sort of makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


So, in a nutshell, you will not test any of these EFTV technologies yourself, because you don't believe they work.

I understand. But that doesn't help us here.

To do this, we would need engineers who actually want to try stuff. Whatever happened to that?



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


The hardest thing to predict is reliability, because there are so many variables. So I do try things related to that. I had an older car which ran pretty well, and I decided to try a high performance carburetor on it. Performance did improve, but the engine didn't last as long. Somewhat predictable, but I thought it would last longer than it did. Similar experience with a boat motor. I gave it way more power, but it didn't last long after that. I might have had a streak of tim the tool man taylor or something
Currently overclocking my CPU to get more power, and I know it won't last as long either, but I don't know how much it will shorten the life so I'm trying it to see what happens. I only try things when I don't know the outcome.

I do know what the outcome will be of building Bedini's motor, so why would I build that?

And why are you trying to get anyone else in the world except yourself to build this stuff? It's really getting old, you should have built something by now and tell us how it worked, since you're the one who thinks you need to build it to see if it works.

I will add that I spent a Saturday afternoon reading accounts on Peswiki of people who had built these OU things. The one I found interesting was when the guy actually got OU temporarily when one of the components fried, and he posted a picture of it:
peswiki.com...:Bedini_SG:Replications:Marcus:Self-Running

Looking at that component, I can tell you that kind of failure can give temporary overunity without violating any laws of physics.

However he replaced the fried component, and never got over unity after that the last time I read it.

You read about a few people who obviously don't know electrical engineering very well claim they got some interesting results on a meter, but none of them claim to have taken their house off the grid with it. So my conclusion is that the fact that nobody has taken their house off the grid with it confirms the prediction I made from looking at the blueprint, that nobody would be able to take their house off the grid with it.
edit on 22-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


I can't claim over-unity, but i did make a yamaha seca 750 cafe, and a 2000 toyota echo run off of water with a home made hho gen. The bike is scrap yard now from circumstance and the toyota i had to return to stock to smog to register in california. Again i cant say if it was truly over-unity but it did get me from buying gas for a while.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I do know what the outcome will be of building Bedini's motor, so why would I build that?


You THINK you know, but you do not know.

Why build it? Show me anyone else that has a finished, open-source product ready to go, complete with parts, schematics and instructions.

Like it or not, Bedini and Friedrich are the only ones offering a suitable product for testing right now. If there were something better out there, I'd be banging on about that over and over instead





And why are you trying to get anyone else in the world except yourself to build this stuff? It's really getting old, you should have built something by now and tell us how it worked, since you're the one who thinks you need to build it to see if it works.


Oh yeah, just leave it to random blogger kid that no one listens to and who's not an engineer to organize the "Free Energy" projects on ATS, that makes perfect sense


Why do I keep trying to involve other people? For Credibility, that's why. No one's going to take this seriously unless we have credible people doing it.

Right?





You read about a few people who obviously don't know electrical engineering very well claim they got some interesting results on a meter, but none of them claim to have taken their house off the grid with it. So my conclusion is that the fact that nobody has taken their house off the grid with it confirms the prediction I made from looking at the blueprint, that nobody would be able to take their house off the grid with it.


What you were reading on Peswiki was results from the SchoolGirl Motor experiment. That motor doesn't output enough power to power a house, and they never claimed that it does.

I'm pretty sure the 10-coil unit does have a high enough output though.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Not over-unity, or maybe it was, but I have a little anecdotal story to share. A number of years ago I had a few encounters with self proclaimed UFO contactee Howard Menger. He had a little circle of followers in Vero Beach, FL and would occasionally give talks about his encounters and UFOs in general. He didn't like me much because I asked uncomfortable questions and obviously thought he was full of #. At one such talk he claimed he had a working model of a UFO reactor in his garage that powered his house. Someone in the audience then asked him why he didn't share that technology with the world. He said he wanted to but needed $100K to build a working prototype proof of concept device to show to power companies (not sure why he couldn't use his little one).

I offered him the $100K on the condition he let me examine the device in his garage with a mechanical engineer and physicist of my choosing and in my employ. We would all sign non-disclosure agreements prior to examining the device. If the device really was producing power out of nothing I would immediately get him the $100K with probably more available if he needed it. This was a serious, no BS, offer. My father was a millionaire, and Yale engineer, in an investment club with several like minded area investors. I phoned my father and told him what I was doing. They would have funded Menger unquestionably. The device would have made billions for all involved if it was real. After first claiming he wanted to think about it (why?) Menger eventually denied me access to his (non-existent) device claiming we would probably just steal it from him. So my reply to all who claim to do the impossible is: Put up or shut up.
edit on 23-7-2011 by wasco2 because: format



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by wasco2
 


Hi wasco2

If you are as wealthy and well-connected as you say, how about you buy one? It's only like 4000 bucks - a trivial amount for one such as you.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


Father's dead and he left everything to my stepmother. She's dead and left everything to her kids. We don't speak. I don't think any of the guys he was in business with are alive either. Menger had his moment and let it pass. While I could come up with the $4,000.00 I can't spare it and am convinced the devices are BS.



posted on Jul, 23 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by wasco2
 


I see.

So still no credible engineers willing to test, and still no angel funding.

Drat!





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join