The Practical Guide to Free Energy

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Building one for yourself is no problem, the issues arise when you try and spread the word or sell them on.

Anyone who admits to having one running in their own home puts themselves in grave danger. Catch 22.

If you even said you knew someone who had one running you put them in danger too.

You fully understand that the next bubble is wireless energy. Free energy is scheduled in for 20 years time.

People who want to build one themselves should, but selling them on is a problem so I suggest selling them at cost to get enough out there for word to get out.
edit on 25-10-2012 by rolfharriss because: editing




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Building one for yourself is no problem

Cool, so I assume you have one? How long have you been powering your house with one for?


Anyone who admits to having one running in their own home puts themselves in grave danger. Catch 22.

Yet people are openly discussing it in this thread and there's so much "info" on youtube and across the web?



If you even said you knew someone who had one running you put them in danger too.

Yet many people on these very boards have claimed to have achieved over unity. Or maybe you're paranoid to the point of delusion? Either way, your argument is not logically consistent. Either the info on the net is a load of rubbish as the "real" info is suppressed or the info you're speaking with such authority and conviction about is "real" and the information is not being suppressed at all. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


You fully understand that the next bubble is wireless energy. Free energy is scheduled in for 20 years time.

[citation needed]


People who want to build one themselves should, but selling them on is a problem so I suggest selling them at cost to get enough out there for word to get out.

You speak with such authority so I assume you have built one?
edit on 25-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Do you believe in quantum energy? Finding a way to tap into that energy is what this is all about. And by some of the best modern physicist's calculations, there is a huge amount of energy that exists in any small amount of space. How is finding a way to harness that energy so impossible?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





The claims of these "designs" violate the laws of physics so bringing up the laws of physics is very much appropriate, especially in the science forum.


Again none of the designs violate any current understood laws of physics so yes it is off topic. If you want to pick one of the designs study it and give an analysis of it that would be on topic. But just coming on here and making a blanket statement that they all won't work or violates physics laws without having even examined them is not helpful and off topic. Can we have one thread that is not derailed by rehashing the same old arguments that really are not relevant to this thread? Thanks.

edit on 25-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



[img]
[/img]

Ok here is a design we can all try, apologies for rubbish drawing! it should power an LED - will have to play around with the gearing to get the speed.

I also though supporting the wheel so it levitates would speed it up and make it more efficient.

The wheel below rotates for 3 mins normally or 15 mins in a vacuum - so what would happen if we ran the above device in a vacuum?




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Like googles X prize there should be an over unity prize '



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Explain how this thread is science.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


If you need it explaining then this thread is not for you.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad
Explain how this thread is science.


Read your own signature paragraph.!

"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom tolerance and equity."

Or I can rewrite it just a little.

The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom in science, tolerance of new ideas and over unity.

The answer you wished for was very close to your heart

P



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Again none of the designs violate any current understood laws of physics so yes it is off topic.

I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you but getting more energy out to do work than is put in in a perpetually sustained manner is a violation of the laws of physics, so if anything your thread is not appropriate for the SciTech forum considering a) your thread contains no science or objective evidence to counter contemporary scientific understandings and b) you are adamant about not discussing or learning science in any shape or form.


If you want to pick one of the designs study it and give an analysis of it that would be on topic.

No. Come back when you have objective evidence, then we will have the basis of an intelligent discussion.


But just coming on here and making a blanket statement that they all won't work or violates physics laws without having even examined them is not helpful and off topic.

You are making the baseless claims that these designs violate the laws of physics without a shred of evidence. You expect us to shut our minds and take what you say as fact without a shred of evidence and discard objective evidence that blatantly refutes your assertions. This is not a good foundation for an intelligent and informed discussion.


Can we have one thread that is not derailed by rehashing the same old arguments that really are not relevant to this thread? Thanks.

Can you post something of substance or at least attempt to understand elementary physics so a meaningful discussion can take place? Thanks.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Now John,

Let me guess do you have shares in Exon?! you are obsessed with this issue, if you don't want free energy don't explore it. Let us worry our tiny brains with it and leave us to it.

"A question for free energy conspiricists
Science & Technology topic started on 20-9-2012

For those who wish to play the science game...
Science & Technology topic started on 1-6-2011

Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...
Science & Technology topic started on 1-6-2011

All these "free energy" threads...
Science & Technology topic started on 28-2-2011

Remember that Irish company claiming they had developed free energy?
Science & Technology topic started on 3-1-2007"



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


As soon as you imply that someone is a shill for "big oil" simply because they disagree with you or have demonstrated what you have said to be false, you've lost the argument and any tatters of credibility you may or may not have had are lost with it. It really is the last resort of those who have run out of anything constructive or rational to say.
edit on 27-10-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
JOHN_BMTH

The 1st law of physics states that you can't get more energy out of a system than goes into it. OK no argument.
But, you can get more out of it than what YOU put into it.

You get power out of a solar panel than what just YOU put into it, because it gets its energy out of the sun without you providing batteries or fuel.

A zero point energy device would get energy out of the quantum field the same way that a solar panel gets energy out of the solar rays.

If you don't understand this then learn some advanced physics; quantum physics. You will learn that on the quantum level there exists huge amounts of energy at any point in the universe.
edit on 27-10-2012 by RebelSoldier because: replied to wrong post
edit on 27-10-2012 by RebelSoldier because: replied to right post after all, got confused, haven't had my morning coffee yet!
edit on 27-10-2012 by RebelSoldier because: spelled his name wrong, well at least my thoughts in the post are in order



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Lighten up John it was just a joke.

We don't need to argue on here, if we were sat having a cup of tea it would be a polite chat..

It does look a little suspect as why it would offend you so much to even discuss the exploration of exploiting the properties of magnets to produce energy in new and inventive ways. This is a positive thing, we should all become scientists and get experimenting. It is a cheap trick to break off any discussion of the possibilities of free energy.. by twisting it into a conflict and stifling open free exchange of ideas and possibilities.

We all respect that you do not want to discuss anything outside the narrow parameters of mainstream science.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 





I don't know how many times this needs to be explained to you but getting more energy out to do work than is put in in a perpetually sustained manner is a violation of the laws of physics, so if anything your thread is not appropriate for the SciTech forum considering a) your thread contains no science or objective evidence to counter contemporary scientific understandings and b) you are adamant about not discussing or learning science in any shape or form.


The is the last time I am going to tell you this NONE OF THE DEVICES MENTIONED MAKE ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS! Now please keep it on topic or move on. If you don't want to examine the devices fine but don't come on here and make false claims about them and then proceed to argue against your own false claims and try and associate them with this thread. Thanks....



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by RebelSoldier
 


Yet again you are twisting definitions around in a lame attempt to get them to support your argument. "1st law of physics"? What are you even talking about? Anyway, you are still not grasping the concept of achieving more work than energy out into a system, if you are not grasping it now it's unlikely you ever will.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Perpeptual motion violates the laws of physics. The site in your op makes specific claims about perpeptual motion. This is not a tough concept to grasp.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Lighten up John it was just a joke.

We don't need to argue on here, if we were sat having a cup of tea it would be a polite chat..

It does look a little suspect as why it would offend you so much to even discuss the exploration of exploiting the properties of magnets to produce energy in new and inventive ways. This is a positive thing, we should all become scientists and get experimenting. It is a cheap trick to break off any discussion of the possibilities of free energy.. by twisting it into a conflict and stifling open free exchange of ideas and possibilities.

We all respect that you do not want to discuss anything outside the narrow parameters of mainstream science.



He cant, he´s so stuck in his own mind/agenda it would take
a million years to get out...
He and boncho trolls EVERY goddamn thread about this
subject....



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


Can we ignore him and have our conversation around his posts?

i have some things relative to the op that id likee to discuss, but ill have to wait til later when i get my computer back so i can post illustrations, im on a kindle right now



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Perpeptual motion violates the laws of physics. The site in your op makes specific claims about perpeptual motion. This is not a tough concept to grasp.


It is a tough concept for you apparently! The site claims none of the devices are perpetual motion arguing about perpetual motion is off topic on this thread. I started another thread for that argument. If you want to argue go over on that thread www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread is for discussing the devices or similar on that site which the site claims ARE NOT PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES. Heck some of them have no moving parts... But you would know that had you read much of it. Have a little courtesy and take it to the other thread.

From now on I am going to ignore your posts unless they are on topic, I suggest others do the same.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join