PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-17, 10:23:16
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
Author Topic: Scooping Ash's Panacea "Hidro" report  (Read 57988 times)
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
MH
I never said "It works"!
Now maybe if "You" said "it works" ........... then I might take that leap of Faith?
 O0

Chet
   
Group: Guest
ramset,

"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly.  That is just nonsense."

Surely that statement was only made in the context of scientific discussions.

After all, that idea in a wider context is the excuse used for genocide and terrorism. I doubt anyone on this forum should have their statements generalized outside of the subject at hand.

Don't forget that the 'scientific' types can be quite anti-social and lack some very basic manners. Glossing over the perceived failings of a fellow in a 'good manners' mode is not a skill learned by most calling themselves a scientist. They call it the way they see it, even if they are looking in the wrong direction.

Faith isn't very scientific but forgiveness should be.



 

   
Group: Guest
eatenbyagrue,
I don't know what else to call what you do?
 The opinion or  Knowledge that you know everything there is to know ?
In this case as it applies to Kwok ,and a device with undisclosed mechanisms and components!
Calling him a liar, a scammer, a Fraud ???

Well, if I was calling him a liar and a scammer, I would not be the only one.  He was apparently convicted in Australia of two fraud charges:

http://www.delisted.com.au/Company/2938/ENVIROSTAR%20ENERGY%20LIMITED

But you have a point, I cannot call him a fraud beyond all doubt, but with evidence presented so far, it sure looks that way.  Let's just say that anyone who buys one of his units is a fool.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
WW
Thanks,Your right !
Eatenbyagrue I took your statement out of the "format" for which it was intended![I hope}
I appoligize!

Chet
   
Group: Guest
ramset,

"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly.  That is just nonsense."

Surely that statement was only made in the context of scientific discussions.

After all, that idea in a wider context is the excuse used for genocide and terrorism. I doubt anyone on this forum should have their statements generalized outside of the subject at hand.
...

"No one should respect someone's beliefs purely because that person believes it strongly" is a statement that can be made in any context, not only scientific discussions.

Respect is due to people, not to their beliefs. "Genocide and terrorism" is generated because of beliefs of people that make them act against others (such belief in the superiority of Aryan race or faith in intolerant so-called God's commandments)  and not because of fighting beliefs.


   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
EX
Perhaps You play to much with the statement?[very easy with this one]
Respect ..........taking action!!
There is a lot of conjecture between the two!

Chet
« Last Edit: 2011-04-25, 14:12:17 by ramset »
   
Group: Guest
There are many beliefs of others I will not adhere to.

However, having no respect for the beliefs of others is a first step toward huge problems.

Would anyone in their right mind walk into a building considered holy by someone else and spit on the floor?

As radical or ridiculous as some beliefs may seem to me I refuse to (knowingly) show disrespect. On the religious side, due to the many faiths I have found myself immersed in, I have made extraordinary attempts to understand and show respect. I can't say I've ran across any head-hunters but if I find myself among them (and they aren't after my head!) I will show them the same respect.

I don't even slam my door on the young men in white long-sleeve shirts who knock on my door on occasion.

For many religious beliefs, that belief is one facet making up that individual. You show disrespect for the belief - you are showing disrespect for the individual. I suggest folks sharing your stance avoid international travel, EX. I've been to several places where looking into the eyes of a woman would get you killed on the spot.

If someone insists that electrons are little balls it is a little bit different but I try to curb my disrespect and blame it on the idiocy that was taught. Where I cannot tolerate such stupidity is when they constantly try to force feed the garbage and then show hypocrisy and the fact they really don't know what they are talking about . When that happens I try to remember to take a deep breath and walk away.

It all boils down to my earlier statement about many scientifically minded folks not having the sense to be a little more tolerant and just shut up.

Ok. I'm taking deep breaths and walking away now.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4044
I need a Thread for this [Gravity}
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10659.msg283020#new

This Is gonna be very interesting!!

Chet
   
Group: Guest
There are many beliefs of others I will not adhere to.

However, having no respect for the beliefs of others is a first step toward huge problems.

Would anyone in their right mind walk into a building considered holy by someone else and spit on the floor?

I am referring to respect as far as conversation, not physical actions such as desecration.  Also, to put yourself in physical danger is folly, so if you are where it is fatal to look a woman in the eyes, don't do it.  But if that woman was visiting my country, I would look her in the eyes, and if she does not like that, maybe she should not venture outside her home.

Your viewpoint gives me the impression that it has been drilled into you that questioning someone's irrational beliefs, simply because the beliefs are "spiritual" or religious in nature, is taboo.  I think if you analyze this proposition, you have to concede it is nonsense.  If I came up to you and said that I believe the world is flat because that is the way I was raised, and it is very important to me to preserve this belief, you probably would not say anything, being the respectful guy you are, but you would dismiss me as a big fool, and if I repeated my claims in civilized society, I would me scoffed by less polite people than you, and my theory on the shape of the world be marginalized.

Yet if someone comes to you and says they believe that a cracker actually turns into the flesh of a man who died 2000 years ago, just because some latin words are spoken, you would respect this, and think this is all fine and good?  And what if they tell you that you must participate in this ritual and many like it, or after you die, you would be tortured eternally in hellfire?  Would you let this person teach this nonsense to your children, or would you demand some evidence before your kids are brainwashed in this crap?

This is what I mean by not respecting.  If someone spews outlandish nonsense, you dismiss it unless that person has some good evidence to back it up.  Why would you waste your time trying to "understand" it, unless you are some kind of anthropologist.  

I understand that when traveling - when in Rome, do as the Romans do.  Certain behavior is expected of a guest/tourist, and I am not proposing looking for trouble.  I am arguing for a complete freedom of intellectual debate, with no topics to be taboo, just because they are "faith-based".
   
Group: Guest
Interestingly enough, the belief in free energy has parallels with religious faith.
   
Group: Guest

This is what I mean by not respecting.  If someone spews outlandish nonsense, you dismiss it unless that person has some good evidence to back it up.  Why would you waste your time trying to "understand" it, unless you are some kind of anthropologist.  

I will agree with this.

Quote
I understand that when traveling - when in Rome, do as the Romans do.  Certain behavior is expected of a guest/tourist, and I am not proposing looking for trouble.  I am arguing for a complete freedom of intellectual debate, with no topics to be taboo, just because they are "faith-based".

If a claim or statement appears faith-based then I would ask what is the basis for the faith.

I have no faith in the Hidro. The only thing I may claim as faith is my belief that we don't know it all regardless of how many times something has been proven or how well the math works. Math is not a religion for me. It is simply a tool.


 
   
Group: Guest
Dear MH,

You asked for equations.  I do not need to produce them.  They were produced years ago based on the soda bottle rocket.  Please read from reply 30 onwards in the following thread:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5600-hidro-hydrodynamic-cycle-techn-2.html

The Hidro works under the principle of compressed air+water propulsion.  It is better because the normal rocket firing upwards in air will be subjected to the downward force of gravity.  The Hidro will be subjected to an upward force due to buoyance!

The Hidro is literally rocket science.  It is an OPEN system with air and thermal energy flowing in and out.  Study the equations carefully before you accuse James Kwok as hoax again. :)

Divine Revelations cannot be wrong.  Amen.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Milehigh
Quote
Interestingly enough, the belief in free energy has parallels with religious faith.

I would also add that, the belief in mainstream science has parallels with religious faith. I believe this because there are many people who call science the "laws" of science but the actual scientists tend call them "theories". So here we have a lesser educated group believing the "Laws" are eternal, unyielding and beyond reproach but the people we know are the most educated call this same science "Theories" which yield to better theories, are subject to change and are questioned outright on many occasions.
I have always found this odd that on average the least educated tend to believe all is known and nothing can change but the best and the brightest, the most educated, have the opinion that change is inevitable. Personally I have a great deal of "faith" that the younger generation, the best and the brightest, will invoke change on a scale we cannot imagine and they will break our sacred rules and laws as history has proven time and time again. If there is one thing we should have learned from history it is that change is inevitable, it has been proven over time and it will happen regardless of what we believe --- we can live in the past or embrace the future the choice is ours.
Regards
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
   
Group: Guest
I have always found this odd that on average the least educated tend to believe all is known and nothing can change but the best and the brightest, the most educated, have the opinion that change is inevitable.

Please name some leading physicists who believe that the 3 laws of thermodynamics are merely theories subject to change.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@eatenbyagrue
Quote
Please name some leading physicists who believe that the 3 laws of thermodynamics are merely theories subject to change.
Richard Feynman, Albert Einstein and James Maxwell to name a few who stated catagorically that we have "theories" which are not written in stone. However we have to read their original works and not the more popular watered down versions such as textbooks which are interpreted by other people, reading second hand information seldom gives us the true intent and insight of the original authors. I do not read textbooks or magazines I read the scientific journals, patents, original documents and lectures given by persons who's work I find interesting. As well I would imagine most all of these people would tell you this has very little to do will the archaic notion of thermodynamics because fundamentally we are dealing with fields and charged states, that is electrodynamics.
Many supposed rules have also been broken concerning nanotechnology and engineered materials where solids becomes liquid with essentially no measurable change in temperature, high temperature superconductors, rendering solid objects invisible to regions of the EM spectrum, power generation with nantenna technology and non-magnetic materials which can instantly become extremely  magnetic through the application of electrostatic forces.
AC
« Last Edit: 2011-04-26, 19:54:26 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
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
You say it well AllCanadian.

The discord which exists within "Science" and all other
religions is ample testimony of the ease with which the
human mind can be manipulated and programmed.

Any institution is vulnerable to being taken over by
rogue elements who promote a nefarious, corrupting
agenda.

No matter how extreme the program of indoctrination,
there will always be found those who are willing to
unthinkingly follow and become devout minions.

Very thankfully, although they seem to be small in number,
there are enough within the scientific community who
love truth more than themselves and are willing to
courageously contradict erroneous propaganda which
has crept into scientific literature.  As you have discovered,
when one looks into the right places there will be found abundant
truth.

We do not yet know all that is to be known.


 


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

Quote
You asked for equations.  I do not need to produce them.  They were produced years ago based on the soda bottle rocket.  Please read from reply 30 onwards in the following thread:

Actually you do need to produce equations.  Pointing to a discussion about water rockets is not going to answer the question.

I think that you believe in the Hidro tower on blind faith.  It will never be deployed in a real-world application because it doesn't work.  This is all like an exercise in performance art.  Did you see the movie, "Catch Me if You Can?"

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Dumped:

I think the vast vast majority of science and scientific research is rock solid and the themes you make inference to don't happen.  The vast majority of what goes on is real and the people are real.  I have worked in the high tech industry over the years, and generally that world is a very benign place.  Nobody worries about the issues that you talk about.

The glass is way more than half-full.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Dumped
Quote
The discord which exists within "Science" and all other
religions is ample testimony of the ease with which the
human mind can be manipulated and programmed.
I would agree, I think critics like to twist the facts to suit their own personal opinions and discredit others to justify their own beliefs. I know they like to include me in with the hardcore OU crowd but I have made it pretty clear I do not believe in OU, I believe all sytems are fundamentally open, that internal or external energy may enter systems for reasons we do not fully understand and that external energy may be converted or change form for reasons we do not fully understand and harnessed but this is not OU in any sense of the word.

Quote
Very thankfully, although they seem to be small in number,
there are enough within the scientific community who
love truth more than themselves and are willing to
courageously contradict erroneous propaganda which
has crept into scientific literature.
I have seen quite a few really innovative solutions and concepts lately and believe the rate at which this is happening is increasing. For example one scientist developed an nano-material in which water droplets on the vertical surface travelled three inches upward against the force of gravity and this occurred with no energy input because of the surface geometry and the forces involved. Another scientist developed a saltwater battery where the battery was filled with fresh water, charged, drained and refilled with salt water then discharged and produced four times more energy due to the sodium and chlorine ion interactions -- the battery produced four times more energy by changing the fresh/saltwater electrolyte.
It is not that the laws of science are broken but rather people are doing things related to nano-technology that we never would have expected because things at the nano-scale do not always do what we expect and appear to directly contradict what we think is possible. For example water droplets cannot travel upward against the force of gravity without an input of energy but they do in engineered materials, the energy must have come from somewhere else which they have yet to explain.
Essentially I have been seeing a crazy amount of proven, credible, peer reviewed technology which most all of the critics here would normally call absolutely impossible so obviously someone is wrong :D.
It's a crazy world but in a good way

Regards
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
   
Group: Guest
For example water droplets cannot travel upward against the force of gravity without an input of energy but they do in engineered materials, the energy must have come from somewhere else which they have yet to explain.

I think you are confusing some concepts.  A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now.  Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space.  Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen.  The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.

It is like dropping a ball and asking where the energy came from for the ball to travel from your hand to the ground.  No energy is required, as the ball is simply acting under the force of gravity.

Also, with regard to your previous response, I asked specifically about the 3 laws of thermodynamics, which, if hold true, preclude most if not all of the possible overunity/free energy research out there.  I am not aware of a single reputable physicist who maintains the big 3 laws are merely theories and are subject to change.  It's true that funny things happen at nano levels, but we have found no evidence of violation of the big 3.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 336
.
   
Group: Guest
...A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now.  Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space.  Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen.  The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.
...

Energy comes from the internal energy at the liquid/solid interface: there is more molecular attraction between the molecules of the liquid and these of the capillary tube than between the molecules of the liquid. It is like a potential energy. The molecules move to decrease their potential energy in the same manner a weight falls on earth.
Now it is also well known that the force that makes the molecules to climb through the tube in the same force that prevent the molecules to escape the tube to go back to the recipient. As for a falling weight or for permanent magnets that attract each other, energy is gained during half the cycle, and the same energy has to be provided to return the system to the start position. This applies whatever the type of potential energy: the work to move from point A to B depends only on the potential difference. It is exactly the same for moving from point B to A, but in this case the sign is reversed, we don't gain energy on a complete cycle.

   
Group: Guest
How difficult is it to do a demonstration of:

1.  A soda bottle rocket to fly upwards in air?

2.  A sode bottle rocket to fly upwards at the bottom of a 15 meter water tower?
   
Group: Guest
How difficult is it to do a demonstration of:

1.  A soda bottle rocket to fly upwards in air?

2.  A sode bottle rocket to fly upwards at the bottom of a 15 meter water tower?

Not hard, but please provide equations for energy required to carbonate the soda beforehand.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@eatenbyagrue
Quote
I think you are confusing some concepts.  A similar phenomenon, capillary action,has been well understood for a long time now.  Water travels upward against gravity with no energy input when in a narrow space.  Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen.  The force of the capillary action is simply greater than the force of gravity, so water travels up.
It is like dropping a ball and asking where the energy came from for the ball to travel from your hand to the ground.  No energy is required, as the ball is simply acting under the force of gravity.

I would agree there is some confusion here, I was not referring to capillary action nor a narrow space utilizing capillary action what I was talking about was a flat vertical nano-surface on which water droplets climb upward against the force of gravity. As well the water droplet has mass and experiences a force and travels a distance (Work= Force x Distance), this work occurs over time which relates to how much energy is required to lift the water droplet. As well I find it completely mind boggling that in one instance you tell me Free Energy devices cannot work because it violates the conservation of energy and here you seem to be implying that ---- no energy is required to lift a mass of water upward against the force of gravity. Now let's say our flat vertical nano-wall is one meter high and transports one liter of water per hour to a height of one meter, are you sure no energy is required to do this? you see I have a problem with this due to the conservation of energy and believe energy must come from somewhere to lift this water to a height of one meter.

Quote
Also, with regard to your previous response, I asked specifically about the 3 laws of thermodynamics, which, if hold true, preclude most if not all of the possible overunity/free energy research out there.  I am not aware of a single reputable physicist who maintains the big 3 laws are merely theories and are subject to change.  It's true that funny things happen at nano levels, but we have found no evidence of violation of the big 3.

Lets look at a quote that explains the 3 laws of thermodynamics in there most basic form:
Quote
C.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can’t get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable).

Well you managed to violate the first law of thermodynamics when you stated no energy is required to lift a droplet of water because matter and energy are conserved. You also violated the second law of thermodynamics because we cannot even break even, however our nano-wall lifted water to a height of X which can then fall performing work as it returns to it's initial energy state at rest at the bottom of the wall. The third law does not apply because we are not talking about lowering the temperature to absolute zero, that is absurd, we are speaking of simply lifting a droplet of water up a vertical surface utilizing electrostatic forces not cooling it to absolute zero.
Now the question remains, are you absolutely sure that your statement still holds true? ----"Energy does not have to come from anywhere, because no energy is required for this to happen".
To be honest it makes no sense whatsoever to me because we know as a fact that the water has been lifted a height therefore it's potential energy has changed and if the energy state has changed then energy must have come from somewhere because energy must be conserved.
Regards
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
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-17, 10:23:16