Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > EM Theory > Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim

2024-11-27, 07:34:19
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Author Topic: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim (Read 20004 times)

Chet K	Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « on: 2013-09-20, 14:03:05 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	Its his own money , He has had quite enough of the Suppresion and is taking matters into his own hands. http://papimi.gr/osc.htm Alsp being discussed here by our friend Duncan http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14440-nay-sayers-100-000-euros-bonus-payment.html#post239917 Thx for looking Chet

ion	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #1 on: 2013-09-20, 15:09:02 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	If I were him, I would not be so concerned about being right, rather I would spend the 100,000 euros building a working device (or if he can't do it, hire someone to build it for him). The final and useful proof of any new theory is a working device based on the new principle. Where is his working device demonstrating OU? Old CRT's are ubiquitous, should not be that difficult. Maybe I've missed it, but I can't seem to find his actual device, just claims. Please point me to it. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Chet K	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #2 on: 2013-09-20, 16:52:33 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	ION I have requested a bit more info to see if there is an experiment that can be used to Vet these claims. thx Chet

EMdevices	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #3 on: 2013-09-21, 17:35:51 »
Hero Member Posts: 805	What he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder!

Chet K	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #4 on: 2013-09-21, 19:48:44 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	Thanks for the input Monday I will hopefully be speaking with Pappas,I did hear from One Person who is making a challenge to the Claim I am not sure about posting that Claim until I hear back from him.[Not Ernst from energetic who has his own unofficial claim pending]. Thx Chet

BEP	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #5 on: 2013-09-22, 04:22:03 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: EMdevices on 2013-09-21, 17:35:51 What he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder! As I see it the mistake is an incredibly basic one. The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle. The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced. In other words.... When the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is applied from the plate when the particle is deflected. He is assuming that no energy is lost from the deflection plates. Have him transfer the money to my Swiss bank account

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #6 on: 2013-09-22, 16:55:50 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Wavewatcher Quote As I see it the mistake is an incredibly basic one. The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle. The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced. I would suggest you brush up on basic electrostatics because what you are suggesting is absurd. Quote In other words.... When the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is applied from the plate when the particle is deflected. He is assuming that no energy is lost from the deflection plates. No, Energy is not applied a Force is applied. Work is a Force applied over a Distance and Energy is a Force applied over a Distance per unit of Time. This is a common mistake and many people tend to confuse Force, Work and Energy however the concept is pretty easy to understand. Obviously Work and Energy cannot act on a body because these terms relate to a measure of something which is changing and not the cause of the change in itself. I mean no offense but it would seem to me that people are simply picking and choosing the laws of physics as it suits their fancy. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #7 on: 2013-09-22, 17:16:24 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Em Quote What he fails to account for is the fringe fields around the capacitor that deflects the electron beam. Classic blunder! Another classic blunder is failing to recognize the fact that an electron beam is simply many individual electrons which happen to be following the same path. As such we could assume any applied force does not act on the group persay but the object which is of course the electron through it's field. Now if we have two charged plates and the force as it relates to the fields deflects an electron then is there a change in the energy state of the plates?. Well no that is absurd because we have already defined the charged state of the plates thus there fields as closed systems. Thus the plates and there fields cannot lose energy by the same rules which state they cannot gain energy. Your grasping at straws to make your case in my opinion and the physics we know states that there is literally nothing we could do to change the charged state of the capacitor plates nor the fields generated by them in a closed system. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

ion	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #8 on: 2013-09-22, 18:46:23 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	No need to argue or guess, but this is to be expected. The proof of a theory....build it! See reply #1 --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #9 on: 2013-09-22, 18:58:26 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Ion Quote No need to argue or guess, but this is to be expected. The proof of a theory....build it! I would agree completely, note I did not say I think it works only that there justification for it not working is seriously flawed... big difference. AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Farrah Day	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #10 on: 2013-09-22, 23:09:33 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ION on 2013-09-20, 15:09:02 If I were him, I would not be so concerned about being right, rather I would spend the 100,000 euros building a working device (or if he can't do it, hire someone to build it for him). The final and useful proof of any new theory is a working device based on the new principle. Where is his working device demonstrating OU? Old CRT's are ubiquitous, should not be that difficult. Maybe I've missed it, but I can't seem to find his actual device, just claims. Please point me to it. Not my area of expertise, but I agree fully with this post. Seems an absurd gamble to me. If he's got this kind of money burning a hole in his pocket, then as Ion says, why not simply spend that 100,000 euros on building a device that categorically proves his claims - a working device that no scrutiny can resist and no scientist can dispute? Strange Needs a big sign: Approach with caution!

ion	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #11 on: 2013-09-22, 23:49:16 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	FD said: Quote Seems an absurd gamble to me. What is absurd is that the judge of the contest is also one of the contestants (and the one that placed the bet). Yes, approach with caution seems appropriate here. « Last Edit: 2013-09-23, 03:40:36 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

BEP	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #12 on: 2013-09-23, 01:01:30 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: allcanadian on 2013-09-22, 16:55:50 @Wavewatcher I would suggest you brush up on basic electrostatics because what you are suggesting is absurd. Also no offense but you should take a moment to do a little brushing too. I did not say force and energy were the same thing. Granted: It would have been better to say... Quote When the charged particle moves through the capacitive deflection plates energy is ~~applied~~ used from the plate when the particle is deflected. Here is a link to a lecture containing the same words in a first year physics textbook (late 70's) I still have: http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf Energy is used (work is being done - the effect of force over time on the charge in motion) in deflecting (causing a change in angular momentum) a moving charge, single electron or not, when using potential difference between deflection plates to do so. I have no intention of trying to collect the prize. That would be absurd. If they had that much money they should have been smart enough to build the experiments and have the results vetted before making a web claim. BTW: If I was just picking something to argue against the claim - I only had one pick since the first thing I thought when reading the claim was what I posted. So what if I didn't quote verbatim from the book. Last time I reviewed that chapter was at least 20 years ago. « Last Edit: 2013-09-23, 02:33:55 by WaveWatcher »

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #13 on: 2013-09-23, 05:32:33 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Wavewatcher Quote Here is a link to a lecture containing the same words in a first year physics textbook (late 70's) I still have: http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf Energy is used (work is being done - the effect of force over time on the charge in motion) in deflecting (causing a change in angular momentum) a moving charge, single electron or not, when using potential difference between deflection plates to do so. I would agree and think we are speaking of two different effects. My impression from the diagram was that he was using fixed capacitors that is the charge on the capacitors does not change due to an external input. In which case the plates of the capacitors may be charged initially and the input removed not unlike two charged spheres. Now if work was performed on a charged plate then energy must dissipate however this is not the case and the charged state remains constant. I believe you are referring to an electron tube where the charge on the plates varies over time from a variable source in which case energy is dissipated through the standard mechanisms, ie I2R and leakage. Ok I just checked the link, I think I see the problem, http://www.phy-astr.gsu.edu/cymbalyuk/lecture22a.pdf, page 5 Quote Work The electric force does work in displacing a charged particle The magnetic force associated with a steady magnetic field does no work when a particle is displaced I think the confusion lies around the terms deflect and displace, a change in velocity constitutes work however a change in direction does not. This may relate to the claim in question because if the charge on the plates is constant then the charged particle(electron) may change direction but not velocity, only velocity relates directly to Energy. However if the capacitor was an integral part of a larger capacitive system then we could be dealing with a partial charge imbalance in a parametric system involving the capacitance. You see this is one of those gray areas, did the field of the moving electron change the capacitance or did the changing capacitance move the electron? If so when and where?. At this point I can only speculate as to my knowledge this experiment has never been done before. As well most people become hopelessly lost in the dynamics of relatively simple parametric systems. Again i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not. AC « Last Edit: 2013-09-23, 13:38:18 by allcanadian » --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

ion	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #14 on: 2013-09-23, 14:23:41 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	From AC: Quote Again i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not. I need to print this enigmatic statement out and remember it as one of the most interesting statements I have ever seen posted anywhere. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

PhysicsProf	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #15 on: 2013-09-23, 14:56:18 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Where do we follow Dr Pappas's replies to claims received? And did he ever build a working prototype? Does he demand a working prototype to prove him "wrong", or is this all in the theoretical realm? Thx

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #16 on: 2013-09-23, 15:20:48 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Ion Quote I need to print this enigmatic statement out and remember it as one of the most interesting statements I have ever seen posted anywhere. Lol, my thoughts are simple on this subject and I cannot understand the logic regarding why people are so quick to judge without facts and disprove a technology. I believe they are afraid, deep down everything in their being tells them it cannot be true for if it was then they would be wrong and if they were wrong about this then what else could they be wrong about. Couple this with patriotism, extremism, beliefs, personality traits and a world which is overly critical of any failure and it is easy to see why outright denial is the easier option. On the other hand I do not care if it works or not, if it provokes creative thought which leads to better technologies or if somehow I could make it work in any way then it's all good. In fact I have absolutely no interest in the conception of a non-working device because the concept in itself is pointless, who needs another non-working device?. I guess in a sense we could say the debate here is retarded ,lol, it is negative in nature always moving towards disproval and failure. We need to move in the opposite direction, we need positive creative thought advancing towards a working technology. AC « Last Edit: 2013-09-23, 15:50:36 by allcanadian » --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

ion	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #17 on: 2013-09-23, 15:48:18 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	AC said: Quote On the other hand I do not care if it works or not, if it provokes creative thought which leads to better technologies or if somehow I could make it work in any way then it's all good. In fact I have absolutely no interest in the conception of a non-working device because the concept in itself is pointless, who needs another non-working device, lol. I agree totally with what you say in the quote above, however it is not at all the same as the prior quote I cited which was: Quote "Again i'm not saying anything works as claimed however intelligence is not defined by denial it is defined by the ability to solve the problem at hand. It may work, it may not however if I could make it work from my perspective then I don't really care whether it does or not." I believe there is a term for this. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

BEP	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #18 on: 2013-09-23, 21:51:41 »
Group: Guest	Believe it or not, I understood the statement However, I had the facts and presented my thoughts based upon those facts. The only thing I didn't go into is the recent arguments of Lorentz possible incompatibility with relativity. If they are correct, our work can finally begin and the claims in this subject may not be far off

PhysicsProf	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #19 on: 2013-09-24, 04:31:52 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013-09-23, 21:51:41 The only thing I didn't go into is the recent arguments of Lorentz possible incompatibility with relativity. If they are correct, our work can finally begin and the claims in this subject may not be far off Interesting. Lorentz allowed for a preferred frame, Einstein did not. I think this is the major difference between their views. Both used the Lorentz Transformation equations, derived by Lorentz. Can you provide further information, WW?

BEP	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #20 on: 2013-09-24, 11:23:21 »
Group: Guest	Here is the abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096 There are many arguments against it. One example > http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mansuripur.pdf My solution to the paradox is that Einstein was right in the beginning. In one frame of reference the object of interest may appear as a magnetic dipole. The same, from another frame of reference, may appear as a magnetic monopole(or 'point charge', whichever you prefer). Non-conducting permanent magnets are the only realistic source of hidden momentum. You don't see nickle plated neos used in TPUs

PhysicsProf	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #21 on: 2013-09-24, 15:29:11 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3017	Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2013-09-24, 11:23:21 My solution to the paradox is that Einstein was right in the beginning. In one frame of reference the object of interest may appear as a magnetic dipole. The same, from another frame of reference, may appear as a magnetic monopole(or 'point charge', whichever you prefer). Non-conducting permanent magnets are the only realistic source of hidden momentum. You don't see nickle plated neos used in TPUs Second paper notes Quote The most practical realization of the present example would involve magnetic fields due to intrinsic (Amperian) magnetic momentums, such as associated with a nonconducting permanent magnet, or a neutron This is intriguing stuff. I'm reading both papers, but not 100% sure what this "hidden momentum" is... Can you explain, WW, from your "frame of reference"?

BEP	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #22 on: 2013-09-24, 18:02:54 »
Group: Guest	"Electromagnetic fields carry energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The momentum density, ϵ0(E×B), accounts (among other things) for the pressure of light. But even static fields can carry momentum, and this would appear to contradict a general theorem that the total momentum of a closed system is zero if its center of energy is at rest." IMO: It is yet another 'fudged factor' to make the math come out correctly and the reason there is attraction an repulsion in electromagnetics. Here is an analysis: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/current.pdf

EMdevices	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #23 on: 2013-09-25, 14:27:19 »
Hero Member Posts: 805	Ok Im back ... What is absurd is that AC thinks our explanations are absurd, obscuring his own initial absurdness which now has magnified to total absurdness, which now has taken on a life of its own, and is so strong that it pulls in more absurness, like this.

Allcanadian	Re: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim « Reply #24 on: 2013-09-25, 16:13:35 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Wavewatcher Quote "Electromagnetic fields carry energy, momentum, and angular momentum. The momentum density, ϵ0(E×B), accounts (among other things) for the pressure of light. But even static fields can carry momentum, and this would appear to contradict a general theorem that the total momentum of a closed system is zero if its center of energy is at rest." IMO: It is yet another 'fudged factor' to make the math come out correctly and the reason there is attraction an repulsion in electromagnetics. Yes I would agree, it is a fudge factor of sorts and it is quite comical relative to what most people actually believe. You see Maxwell stated clearly in his work that he will only consider the main process and exclude all others external to it and those he believes do not apply. Which would lead me to believe nobody here nor in mainstream science has actually read Maxwells original work in his own words. Let me repeat that just in case it didn't quite sink in to the minds of everyone here..... Maxwell stated catagorically that he will exclude all forces external to the closed system and those he believes do not apply. I had to laugh when I read this because what Maxwell actually said and did in truth bears little resemblence to what most people think. People have replaced facts with popular opinion and most of what I have read in the average textbooks is sheer BS, the internet age in it's finest hour. I agree with what your saying AC « Last Edit: 2013-09-25, 17:20:18 by allcanadian » --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Pages: [1] 2

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-27, 07:34:19

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2