Author Topic: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid living  (Read 2079 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: So go forth
« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2004, 11:17:29 AM »
Actually I understand Einstein did attend University.  He just couldn't get a university appointment and ended up in the patent office.  This gave him a means to a living and a lot of time to think.  He also was willing to get help, mainly with the mathematics - Tensor calculus!?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 11:17:29 AM by finnsawyer »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: So go forth
« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2004, 11:22:29 AM »
Build it and the tax man will come.  In my area I've been told someone bought a used wind system and had it assessed for property taxes at $50,000.  
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 11:22:29 AM by finnsawyer »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2004, 12:15:49 PM »
What if I told you that I knew a way to bring about Tesla's dream of of broadcast power.  Would you sit up and take notice?  You bet!  Well, maybe these spinning magnetic devices can receive such power and that's the reason for so much confusion.  They seem to work.  While I doubt true over unity will ever happen, I do have to allow for other possibilities.  Consequently, I feel the overunity people should have a voice.  I also feel it's inevitable that people playing with magnetic devices of all kinds will gravitate to this site.  They should have a voice.  Maybe someday one of them will provide some genuinely startling data.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 12:15:49 PM by finnsawyer »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2004, 12:19:43 PM »
Ok so then there is no energy in a magnet. Lets you put together two pieces of iron and let go, see if you get any repulsion out of that ? The item has to be itself having free energy first before they can fly apart that way ! The co-example of dropping a heavy object and letting it drop to demonstrate that I were wrong, was a poor one. Because then we were only dealing with gravity alone, not energy in masses. But even gravity itself, if you thought about it, is energy in some forms, only that we have not found a way to utilizing it in a way that we can use as electricity or otherwise as yet !


So according to you, The Dan's are only flamming people then into spending few hundred of dollars to buy magnets to copy their wind machines. But there is no net gain in using magnets itself because there is not free energy in neo's ? ?


But the fact is, we get a few amps of electrical energy because of neo magnets energy. Sure the arguments will be that, of course  it takes energy to spin the magnet to get power out of it. Sure thing, so why do we have to buy neo in the first place why don't we use the battery energy to bias the rotor like modern automobile alternators, simple is economical if we see no net gain with neo's. The fact is, we all do see a net gain using magnets instead of electrical power to run the rotor. The argument will continue "Oh yeah the blades provide the spinning power to cause the magnet to energize the coils !" But are we not getting more powers overall out of using magnets instead of using battery despite the blade providing powers for everything, the bias as well as the output ? Are we not getting more to come out of the windgen by magnets then by not using magnets ? ? Where is the saving coming from if the magnets does not have free energy ? ? You go let the blades spin up on a piece of iron and see if energy comes out of the gen.


Pushing two magnets together is only a simple way to demonstrate the energy packed within the magnet. But who can say that we can never ever devise a way to put the two magnets together using the magnets's own powers in the future ? Why do we so much want to repel the not-yet known possibilities ?


"Armchair mechanic" ? That will make me laugh, perhaps I am not as innocent as you think I am. Perhaps I have built more things than you did, you will never know ! A person who can covert a volks into a flying machine is hardly called any "Armchair anything", I guess ! In an area where the water table is always Brackish, and everyone professional or not said that I could never get very clean waters out of this entire general area, but I opened a well and the water is super clean, pure, because I used a different technology than the other people, professionals or not ! As of this date, I am the only one who can get this grade of water out from the ground, nobody in the general area could for miles and miles ! ! ! And in fact, there is another well opened by professionals in the same yard, the water is terrible with salty minerals and other brackish stuffs. Sure thing, before I did the well, all of them said that I were trying to do the impossible, because all plumbers and well drillers did go through with the routines on their own experience. The fact is, I think differently, and I do things differently, so I get different results, every time ! Anyway, I don't have to prove to anyone who I am, but I know what I am talking about.


Again, I aks you good folks, if we truly cannot get "Something for nothing", why don't we let the blades charge up the batteries and use the power from the battery to bias the rotor coil instead of hundreds of dollars on magnets to save on the biasing electricity ? ? ? But the raw fact is, almost everyone of us on this board has netted some free energy from noe's by way of installing magnets into their gennies, admitting or not is up to you.


Have a happy day folks once again.

Your beloved friends, Harry Luubovv.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 12:19:43 PM by Harry Luubovv »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2004, 12:45:45 PM »
Hi Harry,



The only thing that was said with regards to the magnets was that in order to get them to do anything at all you first have to make a slightly larger effort yourself. Some things have this property (springs, magnets) and some things do not (chicken soup, blocks of iron). All things attract all other things (gravity), but unless you know of a way to let something fall forever you will not be getting any net energy out.



"What goes up must come down" and so on.



You can get JUST AS MUCH energy out of a generator using an electromagnet as you can with a permanent one, there is absolutely no difference. The net energy required to power the electromagnet is way smaller than that what you will be taking out, but still no energy is created. The good thing about permanent magnets is that they do not require you to expend initial power to get this magnetic field. If you think that is proof that the magnets contain energy then I probably won't be able to convince you otherwise, as it's the best argument you could make for magnets containing energy (after all, energy saved is energy gained, ergo magnets contain energy).



Just wishing something to be true does not make it so. The only 'energy' that magnets do contain is that which powers their electrons to go around their respective nucleii, but really, that does not go just for magnets, that goes for chicken soup just the same. The reason why chicken soup is not magnetic is not that chicken soup does not contain spinning electrons but that these spins do not lign up.



And even that energy (in the very very long term) will eventually run out. The half life of most 'stable' atoms is so long that we do not need to concern ourselves with that. To all intents and purposes matter is stable. Magnets are - in every sense of the word - ordinary matter, and even though their properties seem quite magical they are very well understood and like gravity will possibly give up potential energy, but no more.



Potential energy is energy related to the position that two objects hold relative to each other. In the case of gravity that's the distance between the objects multiplied by their mass, or p = mgh (that's potential energy is mass times gravitational acceleration times height). When you 'let go' of the object whose height was 'h' that potential energy will be converted bit by bit into kinetic energy as the object speeds up. The kinetic energy is e=mv^2, which will probably look familiar. That's energy equals mass times velocity squared.



If you take two magnets and hold them a small distance apart - like in your example - you have to excert (sp?) quite a bit of force to hold them together. However, you are putting that force in there, not the magnets. You are trying to force these electrons spinning opposite ways together, and they really don't want to, so your muscles are imparting a force to the magnets. When you let go, the force that YOU put in there will be released. In the case of two iron blocks that force will not be there, so therefore they will not fly apart.



I hope that explains things a bit better.



regards,



 Jacques.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 12:45:45 PM by jacquesm »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2004, 12:48:02 PM »
sorry, that should have read 'line up', or 'align', not 'lign up'.



j.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 12:48:02 PM by jacquesm »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2004, 12:54:51 PM »
Ok so true, everyone should have a voice, but some people told me to "Leave me alone". Nobody is bothering anybody here, I did not force anyone to read on, they read on their own free wills !


For a comment just made, my reply is : No, not always did they understand all the data they got before they built anything. The Wrights did not understand the mechanics of flights in many important ways before they flew ! For one example, they always believed that making the tail heavy were the best way considering the fact that the plane always tended to dip down after a bit in flight. But what they did not understand at the time was that, the mechanics of flights works exactly oppopsite to what they thought, tail heavy meant up pitching of the nose, and this condition is exactly the worst condition for a diving plane and the pilot trying to recover the flight ! Ironically, while the plane is diving out of control, any sensible pilot would put the nose down, this is the only chance of any recovery. The Wrights did not know too far about their flying machines at the time my dear, contrary to what you said, they had to experiment to find the answers in fact in a pretty bitter way ! I would wish that you would study history and flight mechanics before making your such statements. Now who is "Armchair scientists" as it was so called a bit earlier ?


Let us just reiterate again here, that the Wrights did not invent planes, they were the body that happened to appear under the correct circumstances to collect the credit, many other people tried to collect the credit, but they were not so luck. Before the Rights' flight, for some years, some Frenchman and English persos had already put together such machineries ! ! What the Wrights invented were horizontal controls by way of twisting wings ! That's right, they built the wings in such a way that the structral shape of the wing literally got twisted away in order to make turns. But we have found out afterwards that we did not need such a sophisticated arrangement, simply using such control surfaces as called "Alerons" is sufficient enough. These sufaces were used until the modern day today, even the Shuttle uses the same technology for longitutional controls.


Have a great day,

your beloved armchair host,

Harry.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 12:54:51 PM by Harry Luubovv »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2004, 01:01:26 PM »
The funny thing here is that a plane that flies 30 feet IS A PLANE and an overunity device that is 99.8% efficient IS NOT an overunity device... it doesn't even come close (regardless of how many decimals there are behind the 99). And ANY overunity device, no matter how $#|+ty is as good as every other one.



For all it's shortcomings the kitty hawk WAS A PLANE.



« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 01:01:26 PM by jacquesm »

JW

  • Development Manager
  • Super Hero Member Plus
  • *****
  • Posts: 4155
  • Country: us
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2004, 01:07:35 PM »
  I often marvel about what it must have been like for them. The Wright Brothers I mean, to have possibly been one of there employee's, and witness those first test flights, To observe them begin to "invent flight-control surfaces".


 I think its like anything else, no matter how much you prepare, seems you have to learn things all over once again once you get there. Im sure much hard work was involved in between test flights.


-JW

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 01:07:35 PM by JW »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2004, 01:10:37 PM »
Well, guess what, your dream just came true. Broadcasting power:



Any antenna, in fact any piece of wire can broadcast power. The efficiency is where the trouble lies. And Tesla (now unfortunately the patron saint of all the Kooks) was a very smart man, so way ahead of his time he came up with towers to beam electricity from one point to another.



Unfortunately in Tesla's days they did not have the technology to create the frequencies required, if they would have Tesla would have been credited with producing the microwave antenna, and after frying his first batch of pigeons, the microwave oven.



That's where the trouble lies with 'beaming' electricity from one spot to another. The beam is pretty dangerous, and keeping it 'focused' was not possible until the advent of the laser beam (another, slightly higher frequency form of electromagnetic radiation).



Transmitting power with light is old hat by now (see 'solar cells'). The transmitter is the sun, we just receive the stuff.



Then why do we still have powerlines ? easy, it's the conspiracy :)



« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 01:10:37 PM by jacquesm »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2004, 01:25:33 PM »
Law of physics : "Magnetism" is the force of attractions or repulsions between bodies of magnetized masses caused by the polarized alignment of the molecules.

"Force of attractions or repulsions" is energy according to your law of physics !


Even a spring has storable energy, not exactly free energy, but storable and someday this "Storable" characteristics can be put to use, and in fact, I am already experimenting on spring motors.


Gravity has inborne energy, it is stored until the time that it is released by the letting go of the mass from certain height. Gravity is vertically exhibiting energy, meaning, if we can somehow arrange to have the motion continued vertically, we will have continuous free energy !


"Build me one that works and I will believe it".

Fair enough statement.

But because nobody can build such a thing as yet, does not give anybody the skill of authorities enough to rule out possibilities.


Happy days,

Harry.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 01:25:33 PM by Harry Luubovv »

bob golding

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 691
  • Country: gb
Re: 'free energy' for off-grid living
« Reply #44 on: September 18, 2004, 03:15:29 PM »
think if you are going to make a machine  that will kill you if you get it wrong does wonders for  concentrating the mind. you better make damm sure you did all the calculations BEFORE you go flying off down that runway, or pulling out those fuel rods from your  nuclear reactor. i live off grid and if my overunity machine dont work  the lights go out. still i only have to go out in the rain and start the genny. i work with big Tesla coils and run an annual show at a museum. get a lot of "strange" people come along but in 6 years never yet met an overunity disciple. plenty of  wierd science types  but they all  conform to  the known laws of physics. still  maybe one day.....

bob golding
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 03:15:29 PM by bob golding »
if i cant fix it i can fix it so it cant be fixed.

RobD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #45 on: September 18, 2004, 06:48:34 PM »
Yes, of course Jacque is absolutely correct.

Harry you're missing somethings here. For one Newton's third law: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Yes, two magnets will push apart. The problem is the force to push them together is greater. We have efficiency losses, we have entropy.

The Wright brothers may not have understood all the physics of flight but the plane flew. That was not a subjective assumption of a scientist it was an objective observation. Ultraviolet catastrophe was observed, Plank had to go back and re-examine the process to see his error.

I'd love to see a COP greater than one but no one has shown it to me. So if your hypothesis is correct then where's the proof. Bedini certainly did have it. I'm happy to hear about energy in the ethers so show it to me.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 06:48:34 PM by RobD »

RobD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 116
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #46 on: September 18, 2004, 06:51:24 PM »
Sorry, that should read, "Bedini certainly DIDN'T have it."
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 06:51:24 PM by RobD »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #47 on: September 18, 2004, 09:04:56 PM »
hehe, don't you just LOVE typos. You can spellcheck all you want, they come back to haunt you any way. Would be good if we had an 'edit your post' feature...
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 09:04:56 PM by jacquesm »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #48 on: September 18, 2004, 09:31:12 PM »
Yes as I have said it already, what if we can devise a way so that we won't have to exert force to get the magnets together first ? This is what we are to work on in order to have perpetual energy. But everyone still thinks within the same box, not outside of it.


"For every reaction, there is action first" please don't think I did not know. But think outside of that, perhaps there is a way that we can have actions done for us without us using any energy first. Perhaps we can use the same energy the do the acting first before reaction !


My comparison between the first planes and perpetual possibilities is only the relationship how at the time, people did not believe what could take place, the hardliners of critics were so sure of what would not work. But at the end, it was the ones who kept trying that won ! Those who has an open mind that won in other words. Comparing that then scenario to today's scenario, they are the same. You are those who were so sure that it could not be done. Your then law of physics told you that nothing heavier than air could hang in the air except if you had feathers like birds ! ! And that was written in law of physics and that was why those hardliners armed themselves with the textbooks under their arms and were so so so sure that it could not be done. They did not have to broke the law of physics at the end in order to fly, they just went around the limitations of the only law of physics known at the time. The new law of physics eventually borne out to be "The Bernoulli effect" or "The Venturi Effect". But at the time the Wrights knew nothing of those effects when they flew the planes they designed ! !  How can you try to say that I look at planes and perpetual machines as the same ! One thing I notice of people, when words ran out, we tend to invent red herrings to confuse the main subject. I was not comparing planes to perpetual, but merely comparing the reactions of those hardliners in both scenarios of cases, and I think that a lesson were to be learned not to be so hard, be more open..


I read back again a few posts back, you said that they had cars already then when they were trying for planes, and cars hit a bump and got flying, that was close to plane. Ha ha, what a joke, this proves just how much some people know about what were was arguing about. The technology are completely different between cars and plane, despite the one commonality, the motor. You said so now by hint sight, but at that time hardliners did not say it the way you said it because cars and planes were completely different technologies all together. Cars stayed on the ground, planes need lift to stay aloft.


You said "Despite its short coming, the Kitty Hawk were a plane. Yeah it were some plane that nobody wants to bother to use anymore once found out of its dangerous shortcomings, but it was by all definitions a dangerous killing machine, not any plane. In fact a few first pioneers had been killed because of the tail heavy designs they thought might recuse them from those universal stalls that frequented those early designs. They did not understand what were a wing stall, it was never on any book of text at that time, then how could you say that the Wrights were skillful scientists and they had every design lined up correct so that the plane could fly ?  A plane is something that can fly, not something that kept stalling from the wings. And the meaning why I pointed out the shortcoming of that flying machine was to show how you were wrong in assuming that they were scientists who knew every detail so as to be able to design and flew a plane. My point being that, they did not know what they were doing, they always had the tail too heavy that could not recover from the frequent stalls inherent in those machines. Please stop making red herrings please, you knew very well all of my points, noone do need to be a scientist to invent things as you perceive it to be.


Another point earlier, some said that this and that could not be done, so I brought out the airplanes story as a sample to say that those on the side always insisted that it could not be possible, they were so sure, they were scientist and all other types of authorities to science, they were just as sure as you and some others are today, no difference. But they all proved to be wrong at the end, so my caution was "Don't be so sure if you knew of a certain scientific facts, don't hang onto them like life, we should allow for errors and misjudgements !" But someone said that it were some 200 years ago, that we should not bring that into our play of arguments.-- Red herrings, but all knew my point ! But even 2000 years old lessons will still be lessons, because this is the bases of our advancements !


I should not bring out some secret that is not time ripen yet. But since you and the others have argued to such a stage, I am letting you know now of at least one of my experiments. No free energy in magnets ? Ok, so I put two magnets together and showed the energy sent mass flying. But the immediate reaction were inside the box, saying that one had to put energy into it first to compress the distance between the two magnets. How shallow my friends, this is where we should use our brains and not take things for granted. Because I have a wheel that lifts the magnets high enough, so that when let go of, the magnet dropped very close to another larger magnet, the force of the drop overcomes the magnetic repulsion and get the dropping close enough and almost touches the lower magnet on the disc below, and this repels the large magnet which is affixed onto the horizontal disc below, which turns one notch of distance. Buy this turn, the disc is gears to another vertical disc which turns too, which has a scoop that picked up the magnet that fell, then continues on a bit turning, allowing another magnet to reach a height that falls again very close to another large magnet affixed onto the large horizontal dis, this turns the large disc which in turn turns the vertical disc that continues to drop magnets and the cycle continues. This is how I get the turning Motion without using my hands to force the two magnets together, outside of that forever choking box PLEASE PLEASE ! !. That was why I told you that there could be ways to ovecome the apparent limitations of law of physics, just think outside of the box. Unfortunately nobody arguing seemed to do that. The only trouble left to be resolved is the falling magnets, small pieces cracks off quickly upon impact. I have already had good cushions of spring to absorb that but not enough, have to still work on it. If you knew what I mean, I mean, if a hammer weights one pound, but when you swing it with you hand, this one pound could become 15 pound or more on that nails depending on how high you swing the hand. So the dropping magnets are really forceful enough to get the two magnets close enough to cause the repulsion despite the large repulsion forces of the two magnets ! ! When an inventor had trouble sorting out a problem here and there, that does not mean that it is not workable, it means that it takes time ! Well this is one of my many experiments in perpetual machineries, I am trying magnetic ` magnetic coupled with gravity ` gravity alone, electromagnetic, springs powers alone, spring and magnetic, spring and gravity, etc etc. I am very busy with them, plus I am developing a new language, which will be the word's most efficient language that everyone will go for. For example, the term "Technological" is "Tcnob", short and simple, saves a lot of time in learning and in writing, this will eliminate the level of illiteracy. Languages in the world are still too burdensome to read and write, and that is why people give up half way learning them, some never want to read and write they want to talk only. I am about to change all of that, just give me more time please. Oh, and, no two words sounds alike so there is no mix up in conversation, there is no word pun possible neither. I can go on telling you what are in the bags but I think you will drop asleep.


You are wrong again friend, how can you say that there is no net saving by using neo magnet in place of electro magnetism ? ? ? ? ? ? I cannot believe my eyes when I read your statement friends, this is the fact ! But we don't have to argue long, just use electromagnet effect to bias the rotor of your alternator and compare the energy in and energy out levels with that which neo magnet used, you will see what I mean. Neo always give you high output, either using less rpm and attain save output, or give more voltage, or gives more current, but it does give more because of the unseen energy in the magnets !


Have a good day macks.

harry Luubovv.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 09:31:12 PM by Harry Luubovv »

jacquesm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #49 on: September 18, 2004, 09:35:35 PM »
sigh... I give up. good night Harry, you are absolutely right. Call me when you have it working.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 09:35:35 PM by jacquesm »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' for off-grid liv
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2004, 10:06:15 PM »
Jac,

lets shake hands first.


If you would call something that flew 30 feet horizontal distance "A plane", maybe I can claim that a perpetual machine that turns 11 turns and lit up 2 LED's only for a few seconds at best record, "A perpetual machine" ! But I know, you won't accept such a machine as "Perpetual". And so I wont accept your acceptance of an object that flew 30 feet as "Airplane" ! !


Have a nice day Mack,

Harry Luubovv.


After I prepared the above posting, I checked that you had another message and so I continue to answer. You said that I should call you when I would have it worked out, I will, but in the meantime, you have my email address, call upon me anytime too !


Have a very sweet dream Jac !

Harry.

« Last Edit: September 18, 2004, 10:06:15 PM by Harry Luubovv »

devoncloud

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
free energy' for off-grid living
« Reply #51 on: September 19, 2004, 12:44:11 AM »
OK, gotta way in.  I can agree with everyone that has posted a reply on this topic because there really is not a wrong answer here since we are talking about a hypethetical subject anyway.  I must say, I agree with what Harry is saying in essense as far as we have bent or broken laws in the past and have come up with new creations that brought the human race further along than anyone ever anticipated.  If we have proven a law of science wrong even one time before, we can do it again.


With that said, I really think that it is fruitless to ask people who are skeptics concerning free energy to suddenly "open their mind" to the possibility.  This I find to be rediculous.  Why should this be important to you overunity people out there anyway?  You are either going to succeed or fail, and after it is all said and done it does not matter what the skeptics thought after all.


Me, being a skeptic, I find it very disturbing that you OU'ers take offense to my thoughts that overunity is not possible.  If I do not think overunity is possible, the worst thing that will happen to me is that I will not be getting rich off of an overunity machine as I will not be trying to build one.  This is my desicion, and it effects you in no way, unless you let it.


I am not out there to rain on any OU'ers parade.  I am voicing my two cents, and that is what this board is for.  If you OU'ers wich to waste your time trying to change my mind, ok, I accept this... just don't get mad at me when I break down your arguments in a scientific manner.  And, never forget.... Until you build your free energy devise and it works... us skeptics are right. It is your responsibility to prove me wrong...I have Science on my side.  You are the one going against the grain.  You have no leg to stand on until you can prove I am wrong.


Ou'ers, it is your job to prove you are right!  It is not our job to simply believe in OU as we do in the teaches of the bible!  we are talking about science here, not creationism!


Also, please, if you are going to believe in OU, please try something new instead of the tesla coils, the Bedini devise, the Newton devise, or any other devise that has been tried numerous times in the past... why?  because they obviously did not work! Not only did they not work, they ripped people off stating that they had working prototypes when they didn't, and these people are who you all are looking to for the answers to overunity!  Most of these guys are not great inventors, they are great con-artists(Tesla excluded)!


If you want to come up with the holy grail of motors, you are going to have to do better than copying the failed designs of the past, only trying to better the design of the bearings on the shaft.  Really guys... we are talking about defying laws of physics here.  You are not going to find where the most brilliant of the human minds went wrong by creating a new apprach to packing bearings; not even if the bearings are magnetic floating bearings!  I promise you there will be much more to it than that!


So, with that said, you OU'ers go knock yourselves out!  Just please, for the love of God and all that is wholy.... Just study how to use the scientific method, and then use it.  I promise this will make your research and your devises better almost overnight.  Do your research... find out what in the past has been tried so you are simply not re-trying flawed ideas.  try to figure out where those old ideas went wrong, try to find a way to fix those bad designs, and THEN try to build a prototype.  I promise this will work better than to try to build the same devise that probably thirty other OU fanatics out there tried to build but to no avail.

Devon.


   

« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 12:44:11 AM by devoncloud »

Bach On

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re:'free energy' for off-grid living
« Reply #52 on: September 19, 2004, 07:08:24 AM »
I do not believe succesful over-unity devices will be built within my lifetime. But I DO believe that experiments in this area may make breakthroughs which may produce more efficient energy products of the conventional type.


Shooting the bull and speculation is harmless. Debating is fine so long as it doesn't get personal. Name calling isn't debate. Debate the subject, not the person. Some people write well. Others write in such a way that they may say things a bit harsher than they mean them. Don't rise to the bait. This ain't the writers guild.


Fulton proved people wrong. The Wright brothers proved people wrong. Tesla proved people wrong. Lots of inventors did so. But many also experimented with things that never were succesful. What harm did that do? It just cost them money and time.


I suspect that over-unity devices are still a grand goal, not yet a practical achievement. But I will congratulate ANYONE who is able to achieve it. Who among this group wouldn't?


My 2 cents worth - and worth all it cost you.


BachOn

« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 07:08:24 AM by Bach On »

drdongle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: So go forth
« Reply #53 on: September 19, 2004, 08:42:34 AM »
5kw, keep in mind that it took ENERGY to lift the rock....no free lunch.


Carpe Vigor


Dr.D

« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 08:42:34 AM by drdongle »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #54 on: September 19, 2004, 09:48:11 AM »
I understand Tesla once blew the generators at Denver with his experiments.  At this point we're not really concerned in large amounts of power being generated by these devices, just what the hell is going on, if anything.  I've suggested over the months a number of experiments that could be done.  For instance do two Bedini devices interact?  I'm looking at this from the resonant point of view.  An electrically resonant device will have an electrical footprint that is (much?) larger than its physical size.  At 60 hz a wavelength is about 3000 miles, so these things have the possibility of reaching a long ways out.  The interactions could get interesting.  How about tuning one to project Elf?  Hmm.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 09:48:11 AM by finnsawyer »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re:'free energy' for off-grid living
« Reply #55 on: September 19, 2004, 06:24:01 PM »
Hi Devon,


I am not angry at you at all. Your way of presenting your disbelief is acceptable, you have your rights to be skeptical about gadgets and things that never even materialized as yet, this is a fair reaction. I am myself skeptical about many things, even some of the things that I am trying on, some might work some might not, this is natural. But we must try in order to find the possibilities, and that is why I try. But other skeptics have some keen way of approaches that they were so sure that something cannot work, this is non-productive in the department of inspiring new thoughts and new inventions. This is one important things. In other words, since I believe that it is each and everyone's responsibility as a human being to somehow guide others to the right path to life, anyone should stand firm to the wrong approach of shutting off opportunities. Sorry Devon that I could not do as you do, I cannot be passive towards those that are trying so vigorously to discourage the efforts of findings the more outer possibilities. And this is why I think it is important to point out to others not to stay in the rim of established laws only and be felling nothing over whatever the critic say.


As for your statement of trying over the same things that others failed before many times, well, lets say it this way, if many people tried for the types wind machines that Some great persons on this board are building and they all failed for a thousand years, should these great persons not continue to try anymore because of that ? No Devon, the materials are different over the years, materials improved, we did not have neo mags in the older times, but now we have them. Further, everyone has his or her own handiworks, every creation is different even if ideas of the structures were copied off the same book.  So we should put aside of all the old non-workables and re-try the same all over. I agree with you though, that people should try to look to find the past failures and patch that, instead of going against a blank wall over and again. This will be useless. And so this brings my ideas somewhat closer to that of yours, I was doing all along what you are thinking about, improve the design finding out what's wrong with it first, and not just re-copying all through bolts for bolts. But I think that I am doing more than just "Re-packing" the bearings, I could not agree with that if anyone said that were what I did, sorry.


But if we thought Devon, that people who are not scientists is incapable of devising something that works, which "Proven" not workable by some scientists before them, then, what do we think about those who are just criticizing without actually even lifting a nail to put the dream together, working merely off a textbook is not enough alone ? ? ?


You also said that we the triers had no leg because the skeptics had established laws to prove they are right. But then first, we should examine what is Law in science. laws are "Rules" that we human being made, many times we made these laws without being able to see the entire picture. Back to the same olds example-Planes. At that time nobody knew that there could be a law called "Bernoulli effect" that could work, so all the way, sharp scientists insisted that we could not fly because the law said that we human beings were heavier than air which indeed was and is a law in science. But they were proven wrong at long last ! Does this not teach us that the established law does not necessarily be on your side of believes ? In order words Devon, the established law is something of an unstable platform on which it totally and keenly rel upon. I think it is alright for the passive minds (And I am not names-calling---Please understand) to hang onto established laws because there is no eagerness in these minds to find the truth, they just "Float" along the game and observing. But for the finders, they feel a totally different picture, they won't let a few laws of science, which might not be a total picture, block them from explorations, because we might lose an opportunity to am important discovery.


As I said once, I like what Bach On said, that he is in shape, because I totally agree, ha ha, Round Is A Shape. This is neat, I like cartons and humors !


Good evening all,

Luubovv.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 06:24:01 PM by Harry Luubovv »

Harry Luubovv

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 98
Re:'free energy' for off-grid living
« Reply #56 on: September 19, 2004, 07:01:48 PM »
To some people who are on the outside of information about the subject, one has to be a type of scientist of sorts in order to build a new revolution item. But we the people on the inside know fully well that, noone does have to be a scientist in order to discover. To build a rocket yes from scratch, we do have to have some deeper knowledge on science and mathematics backgrounds, but for a turning wheel for example, it is a simple matter of observing the rotations and finding the faults, and add ideas to overcome the faults. That is all there are to it all.


Just like some people, they are so afraid to even turn on a computer thinking that they might ruin it by touching the on/off switch alone. Those are the people, you and I can tell, never had the interest of bother to turning on anything other than the light switch in the house, let alone trying to build something different. It is difficult to explain things to those in that case.


See, I am not trying to, as said, "Bend the rules" risking dangers, so why should I have to go through all the science classes of a half a lifetime just to learn to "Bend the rule" ? ? Of course there are different things, if f I were to try to devise am atomic bomb for example, of course I should have to understand the full rules first before bending, otherwise there could be catastrophic results ! ! But lets said again, if I did not understand a rule and tried to bend that, the worst it can be is that the wheel refuses to turn over and over again as in the workings of a perpetual machine. What harm is there in that type of failures ? Some people just exaggerate, either intentionally in order to flaunt their own "Self Greatness", or not intentionally at all.


Have a good day,

Luubovv.

« Last Edit: September 19, 2004, 07:01:48 PM by Harry Luubovv »

finnsawyer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: Cross-posting --'free energy' devices
« Reply #57 on: September 22, 2004, 10:35:58 AM »
Physical systems tend toward a minimum energy state.  In the case of two bar magnets when the two combine their magnetic fields also combine to have the least internal energy.  Pulling them apart increases this internal energy resulting in a need to exert an external force.  Similarly, two bodies interacting gravitationally are trying to go to a minimal energy state.  If the two orbit each other the total system energy remains constant.  When an object falls to the Earth, however, the mechanical energy of the object is converted to heat (or ouch) by the interference of electrical forces.  This energy is lost and the Earth-object system settles to a minimal energy state.  It's a one shot deal.  Springs return only a fraction of their stored energy and eventually run down.  The best devices showing these effects are probably clocks which go for days on end but eventually stop.


I think part of the problem is equating force with energy.  Energy or work results when the force acts (moves something) through a distance.  Only then can we put the energy to good use.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2004, 10:35:58 AM by finnsawyer »

The Crazy Noob

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 83
some thoughts
« Reply #58 on: March 31, 2006, 03:59:48 AM »
I know that i'm a bit late but here are some things:


1)

Quote from #38: "If you take two magnets and hold them a small distance apart - like in your example - you have to excert (sp?) quite a bit of force to hold them together. However, you are putting that force in there, not the magnets. You are trying to force these electrons spinning opposite ways together, and they really don't want to, so your muscles are imparting a force to the magnets. When you let go, the force that YOU put in there will be released. In the case of two iron blocks that force will not be there, so therefore they will not fly apart."


That would mean: if you hold them together longer, they will fly apart in a more violent way? Because you are apllying force to them longer and therefore you use more energy... right?


2)

By the way, you cannot "create" energy, the total amount of energy stays constant. You can only convert energy from one form to another (with losses: heat, but that is energy as well; nothing is wasted). That is, off course, by our understandings of today. Maybe someone finds out that this isn't true at all...

« Last Edit: March 31, 2006, 03:59:48 AM by The Crazy Noob »

SmoggyTurnip

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 294
Off beat
« Reply #59 on: March 31, 2006, 06:53:10 AM »
The ability to think logicallyl is a talent, similar to musical ability.  Some people have it some don't.

Those that really have it tend to practice it and make great music.  Did you ever see some one

who can't keep time clapping their hands off beat.  Imagine a good musican trying to teach that

person to play Bach - total wast of time.  I belive the following things are a waste of time:


  1. Trying to teach someone with no musical ability to play the violin.
  2. Trying to build over unity devices.
  3. Trying to teach over unitiers the laws of physics.

« Last Edit: March 31, 2006, 06:53:10 AM by SmoggyTurnip »