Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method

Author Topic: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method (Read 8646 times)

Topic Options

muDped

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #25 on: 2019-04-02, 00:21:33 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member

Posts: 3055

Unfortunately, it does seem that Critical Thinking for too
many today is an unknown experience.

Is it the fear of being labeled a "Conspiracy Theorist" which
freezes the minds of those who have lost the love of Truth?

That Cancer is curable is well established.

That the Natural Substances which are capable of curing
Cancer are very inexpensive and readily available has led
to their being declared "Illegal" by the Powers That Be should
be a revelation.

It has been reported that there are clinics in certain areas
of Europe and Mexico which utilize natural cures which are
inaccessible in the U.S.

There is no Cure for Undue Influence it seems.

People should be free to make their own informed decisions
about treatments they may choose to pursue without the
Undue Influence of Corporate America.

---------------------------

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

F6FLT

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #26 on: 2019-04-02, 11:05:10 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2148

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/alternative-medicine

When those who claim that there are treatments as effective as chemotherapy have their cancer, I hope they will use them.
They will be given a well-earned Darwin Award after their death. They should also be given another award for their death which save the lives of people misled by their speeches.
Neither ignorance nor sincerity excuses anything. Do not count on me for any complacency towards obscurantism.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

ion

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #27 on: 2019-04-02, 17:08:24 »

Group: Elite
Hero Member

Posts: 3537
It's turtles all the way down

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/us/drug-sales-bring-huge-profits-and-scrutiny-to-cancer-doctors.html

https://csn.cancer.org/node/139411

My oncologist when confronted with this information (the chemo concession) remarked that "the system is broken, and will remain broken for a long time" his words.

I usually don't like to talk about this but I watched many very close members of my family die a slow painful death from chemo, and complications from chemo, not from the cancer itself, even though they had early diagnosis. None were saved.

One young nephew even quit the chemo and started to recover and he looked quite healthy at one point. He changed his diet radically. He went from near death like pall to healthy and splitting logs with us in the backyard. That was in March 2007. In April 2007, the new long awaited trial medication came through for him, so he decided to take it. He died later that month, emaciated.

In my own diagnosis (2015) I refused the chemo and never looked back, nor bought into the fear, changed my diet and still split and carry firewood at 73. Maybe my time will be up soon, but I feel good and people tell me I look much younger than my age.

One friend thanks me to this day for pointing him to alternatives which he believes saved his life. He was diagnosed over ten years ago and refused the chemo.

I have researched this topic fairly extensively, have some personal experience, but don't claim to any expertise.

Just personal stories, not statistics, easy to discredit I'm sure.

FWIW

« Last Edit: 2019-04-02, 19:05:05 by ion »

---------------------------

"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

PhysicsProf

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #28 on: 2019-04-03, 13:21:48 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 3030

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-04-02, 11:05:10

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/alternative-medicine

When those who claim that there are treatments as effective as chemotherapy have their cancer, I hope they will use them.
They will be given a well-earned Darwin Award after their death. They should also be given another award for their death which save the lives of people misled by their speeches.
Neither ignorance nor sincerity excuses anything.
[b]Do not count on me for any complacency towards obscurantism.[/b]

Eschew obscurantism!

PS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated.

Room3327

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #29 on: 2019-04-03, 18:06:54 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 571

F6FLT,
I had heart arrhythmia for 25 years in my younger days, it would cause me the loss of at least 1 day a week when all I could do was lay down. To shorten the story I cured myself completely of it with an alternative treatment that I found on line, By a doctor (William C. Douglas). It has now been about 12 years and I have never had another recurrence since. The cure was simple, quick and very cheap, but as Dr. Douglas said at the time other doctors will never tell you about it (no money in curing people of anything). If anyone is interested I will tell how it is done, so please don't give me crap about alternative therapies not working, I know some do!

Respectfully
Room

---------------------------

"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material" Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke

ion	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #30 on: 2019-04-03, 22:53:34 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	PhysicsProf said: Quote PS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated. The choice was simple: I watched nearly everyone around me that took the poison die a slow horrible death. Very few survived, and the ones that did, it is doubtful they ever really had cancer. Considering that, I was not about to stand in the same line waiting for my turn to "drink the poison" so to speak. The scare tactic used is: "You have pre-cancerous cells in your biopsy, we better put you on chemo and right away". Just about everyone has pre-cancerous cells in their body. But look at the high cost and high profit from chemo for the answer. So I didn't have courage to stand in that line, but if I was going to die, I would choose a friendlier method. The Hippocratic Oath is to do no harm. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in traditional medicine for many things e.g. re-plumbing arteries, broken bones, excising dangerous tumors that can crowd out healthy organs and much, much more. But buy into the cancer industry? sorry, no sale. There is a lot to tell of my personal story, but we should move all this stuff to another thread. The idea would be to take inventory of our immediate surroundings and report in what we see happening, what works what doesn't. All for now Regards --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

F6FLT	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #31 on: 2019-04-05, 11:08:51 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019-04-03, 13:21:48 Eschew obscurantism! PS - congratulations to ION for rejecting CHEMO and surviving to tell the tale! Your courage and speaking out - is much appreciated. He only took risks. A natural remission is always possible. One or some particular cases are not significant. http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log30.htm Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2019-04-01, 13:58:55 F6: "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective, so they are used instead of dubious alternatives". Are you really saying that "chemotherapies are the only ones that are really effective"?? Seriously? Is this question there to hide the emptiness of your file? Thanks to "official" medicine 50% of people survive cancer for 10 or more years. Show us the statistics of the alternative solutions and the studies that allow you to say they would "evidently work". « Last Edit: 2019-04-05, 17:38:28 by F6FLT » --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

TinMan

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #32 on: 2019-04-05, 13:28:12 »

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 4727

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-04-05, 11:08:51

Is this question there to hide the emptiness of your file?

Thanks to "official" medicine 50% of people survive cancer for 10 or more years.

Show us the statistics of the alternative solutions and the studies that allow you to say they would "evidently work".

Only 50%

So aradiating your body is the way to go

Sometimes the doctors dont know it all.
High dose vitamin C will kill almost everything,including cancers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHhLYqF85EA

I can supply many more video's showing such living proof if required.

Brad

---------------------------

Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

TinMan	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #33 on: 2019-04-05, 13:40:25 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 4727	If anyone is seeking proof as to why vitamin C work's,then watch the below. Nothing like increasing the bodies electron count to kill off the bad guys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpptUsJFCEY Adding this video as well. Seems those that studdy why vitamin C dose what it dose are all coming up with the same answer-->vitamin C is an electron donor . From 8:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Z0Jw-gvwc Brad --------------------------- Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.

Grumage

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #34 on: 2019-04-05, 16:39:46 »

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member

Posts: 2782

" An apple a day keeps the doctor away "

Very popular saying when I were a lad!!

---------------------------

Nanny state ? Left at the gate !!

F6FLT	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #35 on: 2019-04-05, 17:49:03 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Quote from: TinMan on 2019-04-05, 13:28:12 Only 50% Yes, almost 100% better than alternative solutions. Only 0.1% for the alternative solutions, including natural remissions? Quote I can supply many more video's showing such living proof if required. We don't need videos. We need studies with statistics. The problem is not simple: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/vitamin-c-pdq Vitamin C may increase the effectiveness of cancer treatments. This was suggested by the study published in the journal Cancer Cell. Taking high doses of vitamin C during treatment would weaken cancer cells, making them more sensitive to radiation and chemotherapy. It's not question of replacing chemotherapy. In any case, it's still conventional medicine, just progress, not alternative medicine. New cancer treatments will certainly be found in the future. A new treatment is not an "alternative" except during the trial period when it can be offered to volunteers. Then it will replace the old one. Medicine has been working in this way for decades. « Last Edit: 2019-04-05, 18:14:29 by F6FLT » --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Orthofield

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #36 on: 2019-04-05, 20:20:06 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 331

Hi F6FLT,

Very interesting post! It inspires a rather windy post.

Not having the skills to do actual research, I do extensive data research, in the 'whatever I can do' category of helping to prevent climate change.

I assume that if an anomaly exists, then researchers and inventors and engineers will notice it over and over, throughout all time and space. So I crunch as much I can of the whole data space, looking for patterns of genuine anomaly, without regard for source.

I do see such patterns, many scattered over the whole scientific (and -un) literature, that won't go away, without the truth being established.
Just as a purely random example, there are many reports Active Nitrogen releases anomalous energy when going to a lower energy state. This was first studied by Rayleigh. This is a legitimate investigation for sure, that has mostly been forgotten.

At the same time I see large scale patterns of failure with certain ideas in the overunity subculture, with magnet motors, motor-alternator battery systems, sliding gravity wheels, and other such tired perpetual motions invented over and over, every year. There are more than 2 million patents for permanent magnet motors in the WO patent system! the madness must cease :-)

This enormous blast of noisy data actually prevents real signals of new science from being noticed. You have to exclude all these bogus things. It is really a Big Data problem, in a lot of way. I don't mean the big data or 'all of science' or the big data of 'all of home experimentation', but both. Because I do consider independent observations from outside of science as being useful to consider. And there is always a fringe in science somewhere, that does become the real thing. Alfred Wegener, anyone?

If one is willing to ruins one's eyes in the cause of discovery :-), then there is a considerable residue which seems to say something new in energy science, and is certainly worth thinking about for a few minutes. Most of this residue turns out to be something either quite conventional, or an error of some sort.

From what remains, a small residue can be extracted that is NOT fully known by science, and NOT noise. It is not usually the stuff talked about in overunity forums, although there is some overlap.

What I've found is that, over time, the completely conventional technology holds more interest for me, although I do keep my hand in an esoteric project or two. I've turned away from overunity for two reasons.

First, because what I see in the total data picture is that most conventional science and engineering does not take advantage of its own art. If all the worthy conventional technology in, for instance, the solar cell literature, were to be utilized by humankind, we would be in a very different situation now. We don't need free energy, we just need to use what has already been created. Useful data that is not being used, is lying around in heaps.

Second, I decided some time ago that there if someone invented a device that transduced some X energy into something that could supply the world with free electric power, it would not necessarily be a great thing. Widespread adoption of such a device would result in a pumping of heat into the Earth environment 'from the X dimension', which would be detrimental to it.
This led naturally to a focus on data mining the solar and thermoelectric technology, which has less of a 'thermal footprint' than a free energy device.

Regards,
Fred

Orthofield	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #37 on: 2019-04-05, 22:47:52 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Correction: I should have said 2000 magnet motor patents, not 2 million. But 2000 is more than enough. F

F6FLT	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #38 on: 2019-04-07, 18:25:40 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Hi Orthofiled, I agree with most of what you're saying. I will therefore only answer the few points of disagreement. I think that most of what we know is used, at least in physics, and including energy. In particular, electronics, which today even uses quantum mechanics theory, is a model of its kind in the use of knowledge. What is not used is generally because we have better instead for the same function, or because the theory is there but not yet the technology to implement it, or at too high a cost. If pioneers like Wegener propose the theory of continental drift and it is initially rejected, it is because the phenomena on the scale of the earth are complex. It is not just a question of conformity of thought that would prevent the acceptance of new ideas by experts. But in physics, it is often much simpler, when it is only a laboratory experiment. However, the experimental novelty must be unambiguous. Of course there are "anomalies" sometimes, but they are rarely sufficiently controlled to allow anything, as we have seen with LENRs. The "anomalies" are extremely sought after by physicists themselves, always inclined to challenge their own theories to find what they themselves call a "new physics". They know their limits well, and often look for them, as around the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity. If we "DIYers" can be useful, it is rather in the implementation of experiments, simple for physicists but not necessarily already done, and it is thanks to the large number and diversity of experimenters that something could emerge in addition to the advances made by professional scientists. Finally, I think we need free energy, and not only for the obvious reason that we will pay less, that we will possibly pollute less, but because it is the key to the development of other new technologies. For example, we will never be able to have motorized mechanical legs to allow the disabled to move around, if we cannot supply sufficiently powerful and autonomous motors with an onboard, cheap and abundant energy. Free energy will boost technology in a fantastic way. We can be against it, fundamentalist ecologists are against it, but the question of the heat input that this energy will give off will remain negligible compared to that coming from the sun. The earth receives an average power of 173 PW from the sun. The average consumption of the earth's inhabitants is around 16 TW, which represents less than 0.01% of that of the sun. Even if we multiplied by 100 the world's energy consumption, and if it were to degrade completely to heat, it would still be negligible. As far as heat is concerned, free energy is therefore not a danger to the earth. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Orthofield	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #39 on: 2019-04-07, 19:49:17 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Hi F6FLT, You make some good points. You've changed my mind on one thing. I can say categorically that many important discoveries and concepts are not being used, because I see them everyday in patent searches. IF human beings were rational, and had infinite memory for what had gone before, and companies didn't bury projects in nonsense, and academics worked in an ideal world where only good ideas were developed, and all important papers were read by everyone, and inventors didn't die just after they patented their gadget, then what you say would be true. But none of these things exist in actuality. I could give examples almost ad infinitum, but I'll simply mention one that I discussed in another thread. Before the existence of BiTe type thermoelectric materials, all TEG inventors had to work with were the thermoelectric metals, which have extremely small outputs as you know. In an attempt to maximize those outputs, they worked out many ways of reducing heat conduction almost to zero by using geometries that created 'thermal gaps'. I accumulated more than 20 patents on these quite clever technologies, which could well be applied in today's TEG, and should be. As soon as the BiTe materials were discovered, all this research was abandoned, or should I say all inventors and researchers who were working on the earlier methods no longer got funding or investing. There is nothing unconventional or unworkable about this technology, but combined with more recent developments, it would allow us to reach near Carnot efficiencies in 'electronic heat engines' and huge amounts of waste heat could be economically turned into electricity. As economists used to do with consumers, you assume a hypothetical 'rational actor' who always chooses the best science and technology to develop, based purely on evidence and without any prejudices. As I'm sure you will acknowledge, this is not actually how science works, any more than any other human endeavor. To put science in the special category of 'the only social activity where people always ultimately choose the right things' is to imply a scientific version of the 'will of god', the 'hidden hand of the market' or 'the dialectic of the proletariat' that makes people end up doing the right things, just because of the mighty power of 'science' as some sort of reified activity outside of human behavior. I agree that you are correct about the amount of heat that a hypothetical free energy device would add to the Earth-- probably not enough to make any difference. I had not really done the calculation in detail. I'm already involved in free energy research which is just inherently interesting, so nothing changes in my actions, although I might put more attention on it again. I could argue that even if FE were developed, it would probably not be used en masse simply because of skepticism about it (there are some possible examples). I see this happening even with technologies that are perfectly conventional but just are too innovative for people to get their heads around. For instance, I was involved in a project to use parametric amplification in solar panels, that was going toward commercial development. It was very difficult to gain much traction, because the photovoltaic people simply didn't believe that parametric amplification existed-- Several EEs had to be convinced in long phone calls that it really was a thing :-) I'm not sure what a fundamentalist ecologist is, but if it is someone who agrees with consensus science about the nature of climate change, then I guess I is one. Regards, Fred

F6FLT	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #40 on: 2019-04-08, 08:48:59 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Hi orthofield, I agree with you that not everything is necessarily rational in the choice of technologies to be developed, but much more so than one might think. Because rationality does not only operate in the choice of the intrinsic quality of the products to be built, but also and above all in the gain that will be obtained, and in addition, often, in the short-term gain. For example, if a company has to modify its entire production chain to create better motors using Halbach arrays like the Catalan one we saw in another thread, the implementation cost will not necessarily cover the marketing gain. So it will continue to build traditional motors even if it is not the best technology, but we will still be dealing with a "rational actor", if we take into account the choice criteria he takes. This also explains why patents are not used despite their technological interest, even if I think that most unused patents are simply not of sufficient interest. I think people are rather pragmatic, both producers and consumers. If we offer them things that work at an affordable cost, and meet their needs, they take them. We have seen the tremendous development of electricity since the end of the nineteenth century (people quickly abandoned the candle in favour of the electric lamp), we saw in the 20th century the tremendous development of phone, radio, then television, everyone bought it, we saw that of household equipment, refrigerator, washing machine, microwave oven, we saw that of the Internet, smartphones in the 21st century... I am not worried: if free energy becomes real, it will be adopted on a massive scale. As long as it can be produced by low-volume generator, no electrical equipment will be sold without its integrated power source because no one likes all these wires and plugs lying around. The only question for me is: "find the thing". --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Orthofield	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #41 on: 2019-04-09, 15:22:46 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Hi F6FLT, Yes, if one includes short term gain as a rational consideration, then I would say your picture fits reality. In that way, the scorpion who stings the frog that is transporting him across the pond is a rational actor :-) Many inventors believe that the workability of their invention in their lab automatically translates to commercial success, and often have exaggerated ideas about what the market is willing to absorb. However, the technology may still be a very good one. For instance, just from patent scans of yesterday, some thermionic converters were made in the 70s that eliminated the space charge issue and had heat conversion efficiencies of more than 50%. However, using them for solar power would entail a new industry from scratch. These patents go into the dead file-- until someone mentions they are making a thermionic generator. At least in established areas like PV power, these commercial and sociological considerations lead me to look for things that can be adapted to the current systems, or at least require only that new electronics be installed (giving a solar controller company an opportunity, if they choose to bite). After surveying some 2K patents in the solar field over the last couple years, I have two, maybe three such concepts that have the possibility of actually improving yields substantially without massive retrofitting. So, yes, it's true that most patents are not of sufficient interest, but given that there are zillions of patents, continuous looking steadily comes up with great technologies that are not being used. Stuff falls through the cracks. Now on to the main focus: "the thing". The very first project I started way back in 1996 (when I had to bus to the U library to look at microfiche :-) was to examine every patent or project that someone, somewhere claimed to show excess energy, simply to see where the most reports were. I wanted to count the number of reports in each technological area to see where there might be more smoke, which might be some fire. Aside from those things that catch the unskilled popular imagination-- the aforementioned PM motors, sliding, rotating gizmos, etc,-- the most anomalies were in sparks, arcs, and plasmas--all likely related to LENR. There was also a lot of 'high strangeness' in water/steam physics. But, at the risk of looking where it was easy to look, I focused early on solid state electromagnetic devices, reasoning that our society was moving away from rotary devices whenever possible, and LENR, plasma, sonoluminescence, etc. were outside the ken of home experimenters for the most part, and not likely to be something that would ever be installed in a home or car. Within the area of solid state electromagnetic devices, two areas developed to be of special interest-- parametric transformers, oscillators and amplifiers (because the thermodynamics of these devices seemed to be exceptionally murky and involve 'noise coherence'), and transformers with two or more secondaries, whose secondaries were made to react on each other rather than on the primary. There are an unusual number of projects/patents using this pattern, starting with the Hubbard Coil, going through the Unidirectional Transformer of Raymond Jensen, to the recent patent from William Alek, and even to some projects in these forums (as well as many more obscure devices). There is also some basic physics involving positive and negative interference, with examples in acoustics and nano scale optics, that supports this line of inquiry. Since then, although I continue to survey multitudinous patents and projects, I've devoted my spare time to promoting concepts in those two areas, with moderate success. Every test involving the 'secondary mutual reaction' principle has shown an absence of load on the primary, and only excessive magnetizing current in the primary due to inadequate transformer design has prevented them from being OU. Detailed power balance shows an effect. This is a technical hurdle that I continually push against in my own inventing and theorizing. Of the parametric projects, only one involving varactor diodes seemed to show some promise, so this line of research has lain fallow for a while. Regards, Fred

PhysicsProf	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #42 on: 2019-04-09, 16:32:07 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 3030	NICE work, Fred! "The very first project I started way back in 1996 (when I had to bus to the U library to look at microfiche :-) was to examine every patent or project that someone, somewhere claimed to show excess energy, simply to see where the most reports were. I wanted to count the number of reports in each technological area to see where there might be more smoke, which might be some fire. Aside from those things that catch the unskilled popular imagination-- the aforementioned PM motors, sliding, rotating gizmos, etc,-- the most anomalies were in sparks, arcs, and plasmas--all likely related to LENR. There was also a lot of 'high strangeness' in water/steam physics. " With your perspective having reviewed so many ideas - which SPECIFIC ones would you say are the most promising? Anything we can build/replicate?

Centraflow

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #43 on: 2019-04-09, 17:06:27 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 3024

Yes, nice work Fred.

Very much where I'm working atm with the TPU, but it is a long hard slog which takes up both money and time, hoping to be near the end of that slog but still do not know exactly where the gain comes from. I'm banking on charge differential within our surroundings which includes anything between the ionosphere and the core of the Earth, just need the means to tickle this into a receptor and convert to usable power

Regards

Mike

---------------------------

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

Chet K

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #44 on: 2019-04-09, 17:32:32 »

Group: Ambassador
Hero Member

Posts: 4052

I only place this here to note the result of an experiment which I have been wanting to do for quite some time ,and was actually talking to Tinman about [once again] a few days ago.

here

HBE [hydrogen bond energy ]experiments need more attention IMO.
Dreamthinkbuild Started a topic here today https://overunity.com/18208/bio-inspired-plasma-generation/msg533416/#msg533416

posted this Video from Texas A M showing a tenfold decrease in energy required to manifest a plasma by copying nature

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOdRRjskWcc

also Member Tutanka shared this HBE work at EF forum a few years back

Plasma from Sound
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmDNDp6EO_w

AND
frequency heterodyne work [Kansius type ??
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkDx32i-7hEo4O2LDO0T5Yw

very Cool stuff IMO and the tip of the iceberg.

Centraflow	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #45 on: 2019-04-09, 18:16:54 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 3024	Quote from: Chet K on 2019-04-09, 17:32:32 I only place this here to note the result of an experiment which I have been wanting to do for quite some time ,and was actually talking to Tinman about [once again] a few days ago. here HBE [hydrogen bond energy ]experiments need more attention IMO. Dreamthinkbuild Started a topic here today https://overunity.com/18208/bio-inspired-plasma-generation/msg533416/#msg533416 posted this Video from Texas A M showing a tenfold decrease in energy required to manifest a plasma by copying nature https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOdRRjskWcc also Member Tutanka shared this HBE work at EF forum a few years back Plasma from Sound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmDNDp6EO_w AND frequency heterodyne work [Kansius type ?? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkDx32i-7hEo4O2LDO0T5Yw very Cool stuff IMO and the tip of the iceberg. The video of Alex is my reactor, this was when Alex and I worked together in private some years ago. It is a reactor to combine hydrogen and carbon dioxide into CH4 (methane). I got into a lot of trouble with that and why it was not continued, seems some like loads of CO2 in the air and oceans. I then worked on SMD which sort of went off track into so many branches that I got dizzy, just too much for an old brain to handle Well Chet you kn ow most of the story. Regards Mike --------------------------- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860 As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.

F6FLT	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #46 on: 2019-04-10, 11:39:49 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2148	Hi Fred, I quickly answer about the hypothetical rationality of the "scorpion who stings the frog that is transporting him across the pond". This is not the same case as that of the entrepreneur: the scorpion does not have all the elements to decide, in particular he is not able to anticipate the consequences of his decision, and there is no rationality in instinctive behaviour. On the other hand, the small entrepreneur who evaluates the cost of building a new production line to implement a promising invention, and gives up because he thinks he is taking too many risks, is well in the rational field. If he has to go into debt, and in the meantime another big company beats him at speed and produces on a large scale before him, he will really lose out regardless of the bright future he might have had in the long run. Concerning your way of proceeding by looking for interesting leads through a statistical study of patents claiming excess energy is very interesting, especially because you avoided the pitfall of seductive false leads like the PM. It's funny, because the point where you arrived, like parametric transformers, oscillators and transformers, is very close to the conclusion of a fellow, an electronics engineer that I recently knew, a conclusion that he made after having compiled quite a many experiments and also experimented some of them, one of which he had surprising results. He also added highly non-linear phenomena to the interesting tracks. Your way of thinking seems similar to his. I believe that this approach is an effective way to make progress. I see two cases to distinguish. Either we observe more or less by chance real anomalies during experiments, and then we verify the facts and try to target the conditions of their production and improve them. It's the easy way. Or experiments are carried out related to a previous idea, then the idea must have been very well understood in theory. Let's take the example of the PM: if my idea is to make a permanent magnet motor, it's not an idea but a fantasy or an absurdity. On the other hand, if my idea is that in such and such a circumstance that I intend to realize, for such and such a reason, the magnetic flux could no longer be conservative, then yes, I can try a PM, I have the underlying theory, otherwise it is a waste of time. For me, except in the case of the experiment which by chance gives abnormal results and then the research to be done is obvious, but I have not had the chance to observe this case, in all other cases, we must have an idea firmly based on a theory. The idea must never be incompatible with everything we already know and that all the experiments have shown so far. The idea does not necessarily have to conclude an extraction of energy, but at least with a situation that has never been tested before, or even better, causing an a priori paradoxical effect, therefore an open door to new possibilities. My method is to look for this kind of idea. François --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Orthofield	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #47 on: 2019-04-10, 14:47:59 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Hi PhysicsProf, F6LT, all, Thanks! Sure, I can put forth some projects/patents that would have a high chance of success. Unless someone volunteers a liking for plasma, arcs, LENR, water, thermal, I'm just going to stick to the EM area. I'd rather not put forth one project or concept as 'the one' because that narrows understanding and may cause unnecessary disputation. I'm a synthesizer and pattern see-er, and don't ever consider one experiment or test in isolation. At the same time, as Centraflow mentioned, there is a tendency on forums such as this to disperse an initial experimental direction into multitudinous ideas, and I've been very guilty of that in the past, so I'm careful now to stay on point. I'll record new ideas and theories as we go along, and when/if we get stuck, then maybe something in that pool will help. Let me first express my biases, as I see them. (You will see others, no doubt :-) I don't like projects that have no theoretical rationale, are surrounded by mythology, and where there are no clear descriptions of how to get from A to Z. This eliminates a lot of projects, from Moray to TPU, that sound interesting, but the cloud of speculation surrounding them is just too large. I don't like projects that use unobtainium. "If only we had some Gadolinium, our flux switch would work." :-) I'm not too interested in who invented what. Almost everything that anyone has invented, or even patented, has been invented before, and patented before. I've irritated two inventors in the last couple of months by showing them prior patent art. In one case, the invention was in commercial production. They did not like it! Inventors are often possessed by their inventions, and there is no room for over-identification with our own inventiveness, as wonderful as it is. Very few inventors actually know their own field of art. I do like projects where engineering standards are high. Over and over I've seen projects where there was some valid effect, but because good conventional practices were not followed, the effect was buried in losses. Along with this attention to best practices goes of course, standard IEEE testing procedures. I have to get ready for an appointment, but to start the thinking, one prime candidate for replication/development is attached. Although the info is plenty detailed, please don't fixate on this particular form of the operating principle. But it is a place to start. Regards, Fred ------------------------ JensenUDT.pdf (229.76 kB - downloaded 307 times.) UDT-A-01.pdf (239.6 kB - downloaded 277 times.) UDT-A-03BHplots.pdf (429.63 kB - downloaded 289 times.)

Orthofield	Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #48 on: 2019-04-10, 15:14:46 »
Sr. Member Posts: 331	Hi F6FLT, Very briefly, because I'm heading out soon. Yes, I'm afraid my tendency to make jokes sometimes outweighs my interest in a serious discussion :-) It's true that the small entrepreneur can approach the 'rational actor' status, especially if they are not too enamored of their own bright ideas. I've been a small businessman most of my life (I own a bookstore) so I know that when I am no panicking or excessively greedy, I can make decisions that move things forward. But my actual experience with CEOs in three pretty well known "OU companies" shows something far from a rational understanding. In all three cases the CEO chose glamorous ideas with lots of bells and whistles over those that showed real promise based on serious study of the principles. In two cases they spent the meager research funding on outright frauds from outside the firm, while leaving the actual R&D team in the dark. Simply putting these bad projects in front of us would have ended the foolishness in a new york minute. Some good research got done in these companies, but when push came to shove, it was the glamor that sucked them in. So I'm afraid I'm somewhat cynical of the corporate model for progress in this area. Parametrics: Yes, there is no doubt that some nonlinear phenomena have great promise. It is a tantalizing area where much is known, but little is understood. I'll have a lot to say about this area no doubt, and I've said a lot already in various places (Jean Louis Naudin's website has some early stuff of mine, and some interesting experiments that have not been followed up, in particular getting energy from switching capacitors and inductors.) http://jnaudin.online.fr/html/tep62par.htm But my time has run out and I must go! Will write more later. Regards, Fred

Grumpy

Re: Eliminate 99.99% of overunity to move forward, question of method « Reply #49 on: 2019-04-10, 15:46:34 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr

I regards to the cancer discussion above:
There are several published and reviewed studies on the benefits of melatonin.

There are also several that indicate a link where people get cancer when they stopped taking melatonin.
This paper offers a review of the research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1395802/
---------------------
---------------------
Regarding a technology or idea to pursue for our energy needs, I recommend the device explained by "Spherics". "Spherics" provided his own explanation of how this device and similar devices, including the TPU's, are purported to work. I noticed that the Gyroscopic Force theory of Willie Johnson allows for the operation of these devices and provides a more complete physics than is currently supported by mainstream scientists. I hope to start working on this again, later this year.