PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-07, 13:07:10
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
Author Topic: Battelfield  (Read 7438 times)
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
...
Posts: 1717
   
What Tesla succeeded in is not secret, read his patents, and what is "secret" is what Tesla failed at, his theoretical ideas being wrong.
...

What are you talking about?
His patents work. But his crazy ideas of transmitting energy over long distances never worked, nor did his ideas of producing free energy. None of this exists in his patents.
He failed because his theoretical ideas were wrong and he was too pretentious to accept those of academic science like Maxwell. Approach physics with an engineer's way of thinking, and you fail. He did not understand that he was only a talented inventor and engineer, not a physicist.



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

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 568
What are you talking about?
His patents work. But his crazy ideas of transmitting energy over long distances never worked, nor did his ideas of producing free energy. None of this exists in his patents.

US685957A



---------------------------
"An overly-skeptical scientist might hastily conclude by scooping and analyzing a thousand buckets of ocean water that the ocean has no fish in it."
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 116
Quote
Quote from: Vidura on 2023-01-09, 23:02:32

    To call it a theory by convention there have to be very consistent proofs, so let's call it hypothesis for the instance. IMO there is a common pattern, despite that the builders give differing explanations.  I will share my point of view on the theoretical topic, maybe some will find a useful inspiration for the attempts of replications.


A common pattern for what?
Before launching into idle theories about a commonality of OU-producing devices, science starts by checking the facts.
What are the facts?
Are there different systems that produce OU? Where are their schematics, measurement protocols, measurements that would allow us to verify their commonality?

This so-called commonality is like the "vital principle" that in the Middle Ages was held to explain all life forms. And unlike the OU, we at least had facts because we could observe life forms. But this has never explained anything or allowed anything to be done, it is simply a useless palliative of ignorance.
F6
Of course I am aware of your attitude towards the OU devices which became known to public to a certain degree. Lets come to a common agreement:  neither I nor anyone else here has personally observed one of this devices working in front of his eyes. Therefore we can't know if they are working, nor you can know that they are not. So for the part of verification and protocol measurements we will have to wait, until to get the opportunity is given, in one  way or another. Of course all what I post is an assumption, based on a idea which is for the instance hypothetical. This implicit that it could proof right or wrong. In context of this background, there is a common pattern.
Regarding the scientific methodology, it has become more complex. Unlike the ancient scientifics, which had to relay mostly on the perception of their sense organs, in modern science we are depending mostly on their extensions, which are the measurement apparatus. And there are usually more then one interpretation of the results. But the attitude in addressing a task is important also. There was a recognized scientist, who stated and published that an aircraft heavier than the air could not possibly fly. One week after the brothers Wright succeeded with their first operating air-plain. And they wasn't scientists.
Regards Vidura.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
@Vidura

I agree with what you say, except for one point.
Do you seriously believe that Kelvin did not know that birds were heavier than air, and yet they flew?
Kelvin's phrase "heavier than air flying machines are impossible" was said in the context of his time, namely that according to his calculations from the power to weight ratio of the engines of his time, an aeroplane could not fly and he was right.
Taken out of its context, which he may not even have specified, as it is so obvious, this sentence has been used against scientists to assert that any incompetent person who says or does anything would have as much chance as they do of being right, and of succeeding.
The reminder of this anecdote therefore means nothing.

A second point I return to, which is not wrong but imho irrelevant, is the question of the interpretation of measurements.
Measurements only serve to check that the equations that model physical phenomena are correct. You may be thinking of the interpretations of quantum mechanics? Its mathematical formalism is correct, the observations conform to the equations, the theoretical probability of measuring A rather than B corresponds to the experimental probability, but there are many interpretations of QM (Copenhagen school, Everett, transactional interpretation, relational interpretation...).
Without quantified predictions of results, there is no physical science. An interpretation is not quantified. The interpretation of measurements is no longer science, it is research. In research, only the method is scientific, but unlike science, it is not yet knowledge but hypotheses. This is why we have several hypotheses depending on the interpretations we make.  They help to progress, since the aim of the game is to eliminate the bad hypotheses by testing them in order to keep only the good one (if we have it), and this one will become science.

But in any case, these interpretations are based on facts, on observations. Concerning the OU, there are no facts or observations, not a single testable device, so what can be said about the commonality of the devices of those who claim to make them cannot be tested, and will therefore remain at the same level as a discussion on the sex of angels.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
It appears that we are all here on blind faith... :D
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
My "faith" is limited to thinking that there is a non-zero probability of producing free or cheap energy.
That's why I'm here.
Is it really faith? I don't think so.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
My "faith" is limited to thinking that there is a non-zero probability of producing free or cheap energy.
That's why I'm here.
Is it really faith? I don't think so.

There are many experiments that you could explore, but you do not appear interested in any of them.
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 327
Be the change you wish to see in the world
There are many experiments that you could explore, but you do not appear interested in any of them.

Right on! Literally hundreds of devices have been invented and open sourced over time, that could be tried and if copied exactly, may well do what they say on the tin!

I'd assume we're all pretty dead set on the fact that there's SOMETHING that'll go over unity and produce a useful amount of power 'til the "bearings give out" or what have you. aka it's possible or you wouldn't be here reading this, surely?

Some devices claim to even avoid entropy, if solid stated.

There must be another reason that the bubble has yet to burst.

I'd assume corporate greed, given the obvious implications this could have and the suffering that is already known by cobalt miners in the Congo and elsewhere. It's really not a far stretch to imagine given what I have seen, that we have all been taken for fools and pay power companies to have a wrestling match inside the generator, quoting Tom Bearden.
("But that's not Tom Bearden - it's in the literature!!")
« Last Edit: 2024-07-24, 01:34:57 by Excelsior »
   
Group: Guest
Yes all very interesting now lets look at this from an educational point of view,and at the end of the day just what do any of you reaiy know about any of it?
So what have you picked up from Morays documents found on the JB site and ED knowledge threads and videos can be , So what do any of you think or guess  where the energy is generated in the device and what techniques are all ready known about from an educational point of view.

Sil
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Any of this speculation confirmed to actually work?
   
Group: Guest
hmm, well if I were any of you I wouldn't quit my day time job, because I have seen much better ideas and explanations on TV than that and seen  Akula and others demonstrate better than that on over unity.com and on you tube as well. Have you read all what Vidura has said in his explanations ?

Sil
   
Group: Moderator
Full Member
*****

Posts: 116
@Vidura

I agree with what you say, except for one point.
Do you seriously believe that Kelvin did not know that birds were heavier than air, and yet they flew?
Kelvin's phrase "heavier than air flying machines are impossible" was said in the context of his time, namely that according to his calculations from the power to weight ratio of the engines of his time, an aeroplane could not fly and he was right.
Taken out of its context, which he may not even have specified, as it is so obvious, this sentence has been used against scientists to assert that any incompetent person who says or does anything would have as much chance as they do of being right, and of succeeding.
The reminder of this anecdote therefore means nothing.

The anecdote was quoted in context with the attitude for clarity. I do not doubt on lord Kelvins abilities and intelligence, but he preferred to adhere to what was established to be believed in that time, whereas the Wright brothers followed their revolutionary idea, put a lot of time and effort in the development of their apparatus, and achieved the goal. This does not mean that science is superfluous, in no way. The studies of aerodynamics has contributed a lot to bring the technologies of air crafts to where it actually is.
In context with OU this means only that if we adhere to what has to be believed nowadays regarding the generation of electric currents, then there will be hardly any advance. On the other hand , if we have no clear Idea how to proceed in the search,the possibilities are very small as well.
Vidura
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
...but he preferred to adhere to what was established to be believed in that time

Unfounded accusation.
Scientists are curious people who, on the contrary, try to question what they know, and to go beyond.
Science always questions the beliefs of its time to progress.

Quote
...
In context with OU this means only that if we adhere to what has to be believed nowadays regarding the generation of electric currents, then there will be hardly any advance.
Vidura

This idea that we see everywhere in the free energy movement is precisely wrong.

Do you think that recognizing the validity of Newtonian mechanics prevented Einstein from going beyond it?
Do you think that recognizing classical electromagnetism prevented Planck from going beyond it?
Neither Newtonian mechanics nor classical electromagnetism have been invalidated by relativity or quantum mechanics, because what verifies the observations one day, verifies them all the time. The known laws of physics never become false, it is only their field of validity that is reduced when we approach extreme cases (for relativity, high speed or high gravity) where the precision of new measurements shows that the nth digit of the decimals starts to be false and an encompassing theory, more precise, becomes necessary for these cases.

The FE movement has never understood the difference between going beyond what is known and works, and denying at all costs what is known and works, in order to differentiate with anything else. It's all the more stupid because no theory is necessary before observing something new, since a theory is used to model what we observe, so there is no need to discredit existing theories in order to progess, it is even counterproductive. Obviously, the denial of what works prevents any progress in FE, which is why we don't see any FE technology spreading.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Guest
F6FLT Struth sheila you full of it, if your going to quote Einstein and others incorrectly get your facts straight

Both Einstein and Maxwell came to the same conclusion and that was pre 1940's atom bomb development
all what your quoting is incorrect and any pre 1945 rework on equations were incorrect, and unless you sauce
post Maxwell's work your going to get the crap your cumming out with,If you are who you say you are you would know all this in fact Donald Smith had to sauce a copy of this work with difficulty from the Harvard university and Oxford university in the uk.

Sil

   
Group: Guest
Blind faith you say, Way back in the late 70's early 80's the firm i was working for booked a visit to the NEC in UK
 a computer exhibition one of the exhibitors had a fish tank with a couple of incandescent lamps lite up quite brightly but immersed in water that is until the earth was removed the guy said it was driven with a wave guide Tesla device. I never thought any more of it
as like you, then any interest in that device brought the BS stigma about what was then called zero point energy.

Sil
« Last Edit: 2023-01-11, 20:39:20 by AlienGrey »
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
@AlienGrey

You are denying what I am saying without knowing how to explain why. Your gratuitous assertions and anecdotes placed on the subject without any logic are so inconsistent that they do not even constitute the slightest rational objection to what I said. The connection is not even discernible.
Make reasoned and coherent explanatory statements, and I can answer you.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Guest
@AlienGrey

You are denying what I am saying without knowing how to explain why. Your gratuitous assertions and anecdotes placed on the subject without any logic are so inconsistent that they do not even constitute the slightest rational objection to what I said. The connection is not even discernible.
Make reasoned and coherent explanatory statements, and I can answer you.
Talk is cheep especially yours and Because I know you don't do any experiments other wise you would have noticed something in those experiment and yet you remain totally ignorant.

Any way F6 why don't you talk to (Aking.21) he went out to visit Tariel Kapanadzeadsey in person
why don't you talk to him he actually had his hands on TK's device. I'm sure he will be pleased to listen to your arguments about it all being fake.
Sil
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
Talk is cheep especially yours and Because I know you don't do any experiments other wise you would have noticed something in those experiment and yet you remain totally ignorant.

Any way F6 why don't you talk to (Aking.21) he went out to visit Tariel Kapanadzeadsey in person
why don't you talk to him he actually had his hands on TK's device. I'm sure he will be pleased to listen to your arguments about it all being fake.
Sil

Your comments are defamatory, false and stupid. You don't know anything about me, but it's like for the FE, you think it's your duty to talk about what you don't know.

I have been experimenting with electronics since I was 11 years old, when I built my first radio. I passed my amateur radio license exam on a transmitter I built. I have since designed and built a considerable amount of devices in the RF field. And on OUR, you can see pictures of different setups I have tested and the measurements and conclusions I have drawn from them.

Unlike incompetents who are unable to conclude anything from what they do and hang on to any crap from a guy who claims to have FE, like Kapanadze who they have been circling for 15 years with no results, I test proofs of principle. Plenty of people have talked to Kapanadze and they are still unable to produce FE, because Kapanadze has never produced it either.

You don't seem to understand that reproducing a big mess of which we don't even have the exact plan (lots of black boxes in Kapanadze's patents) is a waste of time because we are only interested in the elementary phenomenon at the origin of the OU. It is here that the proof of principle is necessary, and precise measurements allow to verify it. It must be provided by the inventor, otherwise his supposed invention is only a tale.

If you had ideas, you would test them rather than clown around Kapanadze. Everyone has the right to be incompetent, naive, unsuccessful, and a fan of FE claims that are as false as they are sensational. But from there to making defamatory, false and stupid remarks about those who express themselves here and experiment, there is a step that you should not have taken if you did not want to be answered in the same tone.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Guest
How amusing, it sounds like your having an aggressive school boy tantrum, you are dangerous!
I cant help you and don't want to get involved in your agenda, you need to agree to disagree and leave things like that.

Sil
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
How amusing, it sounds like your having an aggressive school boy tantrum, you are dangerous!
...

I am surely less aggressive and dangerous than you are annoying.

Quote
I cant help you and don't want to get involved in your agenda, you need to agree to disagree and leave things like that.

I don't need any help from you, I didn't go looking for you, and I don't see you with the right scientific and technical profile to give me any.

In this thread I had answered Vidura, and you started to talk about me in discourteous and misleading terms, rather than about the subject, which is not admissible in a debate, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_personam

Sticking to the topic of the thread is good practice. There is no open topic of discussion here about one participant or the other, and that is not the purpose of this forum, so the behavior to be held is perfectly clear..



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Guest
F6 well you carry on with the BS see how far you get in the next ten years and any one else that follows you.

You talk with forked tongue, you did seek me out and demanded COP and that i gave you intricate technical know how.
I make a point of building modules and finding out how they work then I dissemble them.
I don't have the space to keep junk working or not. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Your article about  a Tesla coil was most amusing whats it suppose to do ?
Can you describe with your superior brain, 'Oh' great one what it's suppose to do with a drawing ??

Sil
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2068
@AG
Aren't you tired of talking pathetic nonsense? Don't you ever take a break?



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4043
Well
Open source FE is not denied to anyone…
So AG,
Hopefully it will be much sooner than your timeline for F6

I certainly hope so !

Respectfully
Chet K
PS
It might be nice to know what kind of FE happiness was seen and ignored by F6 ( you stated if he had done the experiments he would have seen something??

Can you embellish ?
As this type of pointing into ( nothing specific) ?
Has indeed become your trademark…
Please ??
   

Sr. Member
****

Posts: 327
Be the change you wish to see in the world
Surely, we all want more or less the same thing here?

I understand the purveyed animosity elsewhere, at least to some extent, but surely there's no need for it here too?
Can't we just work together towards a unified goal, make suggestions etc.

I know where pissy bickering gets you, done plenty of it.
9 times out of 10 there's no discernable benefit to either party.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 271
Can't we just work together towards a unified goal, make suggestions etc.

I'm all for that. Life's too short to waste time bickering over minutiae.

In my opinion we need to work together as a team towards a common goal, not as a collection of individuals working in isolation fearing sharing knowledge & ideas. Who is to know what roadblock someone might be stopped in their tracks by, that which might be unblocked by something seemingly obvious to another?
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-07, 13:07:10