PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-26, 19:46:21
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 37
Author Topic: Romerouk's Muller Replication  (Read 510609 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Yes,  the secret is in the biasing magnets...

You gents need to think out of the box a little.

A rotating dielectric in a magnetic field will have a static electric field on it.  Changing a magnetic field or electric field 'within' the other field will expose the magnifying field.



   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3960


Buy me some coffee
Just in case anyone is interested this is the DC-DC converter he used
http://www.maplin.co.uk/universal-3a-dc-power-supply-228639
   

Jr. Member
**

Posts: 69
He mentioned it would start without a battery when he spin it up little by hand. Very strange, hence it would mean, over one single cycle the output coils converting the movement of magnets to more electricity, as what needed to create the movement. I would love to see that's happening in the front of my eye.   ;)

Anyway, anybody remembering the Mylow saga? How hard was for some to accept, that lovely looking man, who built a lot of things before, coned the whole forum successively for several weeks? I would love to be sure, that's not what happening now again, but honestly I can't be.


---------------------------
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Microcontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.

He probably just got himself put on moderation too. Good going marco, you finally got what you were asking for!  O0


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Let us hope that when the string-finding-debunkers apply their craft to this one they have learned to reveal the string without showing it below an object in one view and above that object in the next view.

People see what they wish. Some will massage it until it shows what they wish.

I see that period as a time when the know-it-alls showed how weak their knowledge was.

1. A magnet sliding down on a conductive surface drags evenly when polarized one way and lifts when polarized the other way. A few revealed themselves on that one.
2. A ferrous toroid no longer attractive to a magnet when the coil is energized. Many more embarrassed themselves with that.
3. A stack of washers forcefully separating themselves while in a magnetic field. Someone even tried to patent that idea  :(

This motor/generator might reveal a few more. Hopefully me - then I can learn something  :)
   
Group: Guest
Microcontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.

He probably just got himself put on moderation too. Good going marco, you finally got what you were asking for!  O0

I noticed that too.  So much for open discussion.  Stefan was foiled though because Hoptoad quoted it.  So he may delete that posting also.

For posterity:

Quote
Quote from: Microcontroller on Today at 02:46:35 PM

    Why do you stress so much about the no battery's inside??

    Did you ever turn a generator by hand to lite up a 12 volt 20 Watt bulb?
    It needs alot of kinetic energy to do that.

    Which is why i can tell your device is a fraud.
    That rotor is spinning way too slow to burn that lightbulb but it seems i am the only one that sees that.

    Maybe that is because I actually used a lot of hand driven generators...whilst the rest of the members never did since they can just plug things in.

20 watts requires a moderate amount of muscle power.  If you go to a science center chances are you will come across a stationary bicycle connected to a generator and you can pedal it to light up a 60-watt light bulb.  Once the light bulb actually comes on and is brightly lit, you might be very surprised how hard it is to pedal the generator.

That's just a point of information that does not necessarily apply to Romero's device.  However, you can still make a rough estimate in your mind about how much mechanical power you think the battery and the two drive coils can produce and compare that to an estimate of how much mechanical power it takes to drive a 20-watt electrical load.  You can only do that if you pedaled on a bicycle-generator in a science center or something equivalent.

MileHigh
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Indeed MH,

But that is with the assumption that the generator coils experience the standard counter-emf normally expected. If in actuality there is little or no cemf, then it would require much less energy to propel the rotor, even whilst it is driving a load.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
Two points:

Romero just did a video clip where he suspends the setup in free air with holding it with his arm.  It looks pretty convincing and naturally people will be both amazed by the clip and others will offer up explanations as to how it could be faked.

If I was going to fake that clip I would have bought a second DC-to-DC converter.  Then just hollow-out the second converter and put batteries inside.  In the new clip the RPM of the rotor is consistent with it being powered by a 3-volt source based on the observations in the 20-minute self-runner video.

Going back to the self-runner video, there is something else for concern.  When he switches from the battery power to the DC-to-DC converter power nothing changes, the rotor has the same sound and the RPM doesn't change.  There really should be some sort of perceptible change in the motor when that happens.  The same thing when he has it in self-runner mode and he connects and disconnects the light bulb load.  There is no perceptible change in the operation of the self-runner.  One more time, there should be a change as the motor-generator stabilizes to a new operating point with the addition of the light bulb load.

Again I have to say, one possible explanation for no perceptible change in the operation of the motor is that it is being powered by a robust voltage source.  That robust voltage source might be a direct connection from a battery.  By the same token the voltage source might be the DC-to-DC converter.  This of course implies that something else is powering the DC-to-DC converter.

With no perceptible changes in the operation of the motor it suggests that the voltage source was rock-steady.  The DC-to-DC converter is able to output a rock-steady voltage as compared to a moderately sized battery like the one we see in the clip.  A larger battery would also be able to output a rock-steady voltage.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

Fresh Air

Its great to see the forums jumping with excitement again
and the depressing subject of the last four months finally
relegated to the insignificant status that it always was.

Mookie
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Milehigh
Quote
That's just a point of information that does not necessarily apply to Romero's device.  However, you can still make a rough estimate in your mind about how much mechanical power you think the battery and the two drive coils can produce and compare that to an estimate of how much mechanical power it takes to drive a 20-watt electrical load.  You can only do that if you pedaled on a bicycle-generator in a science center or something equivalent.
I would agree and if we want to understand the reason as to why a standard generator works so poorly we can pass a very strong neo magnet past a block of aluminum. When we do this it is as if the magnet just entered a bowl of jello and all motion is resisted which is a similar to the reason why a standard generator requires so much effort to turn under load. However with a little understanding and insight we can change the facts to some extent, for instance I once asked the simple question can a motor action be produced with no inherent generator action? That is can a coil produce a magnetic field which acts on a rotor magnet but the rotor magnetic field cannot act on the coil (no Bemf) ---my experiments have proven that the answer is yes. The issue here is that in order to get better answers we have to start asking better questions which do not make assumptions based on the popular understanding of things.

Quote
Going back to the self-runner video, there is something else for concern.  When he switches from the battery power to the DC-to-DC converter power nothing changes, the rotor has the same sound and the RPM doesn't change.  There really should be some sort of perceptible change in the motor when that happens.  The same thing when he has it in self-runner mode and he connects and disconnects the light bulb load.  There is no perceptible change in the operation of the self-runner.  One more time, there should be a change as the motor-generator stabilizes to a new operating point with the addition of the light bulb load.
Hmm maybe you have answered your own question, what if the FE effects were based on the fact that the "load" or a change in load which is a generator function cannot effect the motor function driving it. In this case the reason you may have assumed it cannot work is in fact the reason it does, it reminds me of this quote----“It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so.”.

@Poynt99
Quote
Microcontroller (marco) at OU just posted that Romero's Muller motor is a "fraud". This post was promptly deleted by Stefan.
One question we should ask here is ---- should we blindly accept the statements of persons who have never succeeded at FE? Personally I have little interest in the opinions of people who have never succeeded because quite simply they have never succeeded :D. This is equivalent to seeking advice from the worst race car driver on how to beat the best race car driver, it is like seeking financial advice from a homeless man who has lost everything and makes no sense whatsoever.
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: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
Marco did claim he had a working OU device to me in PM.  I had told him a long time ago that he would never have OU and he wanted to tell me how wrong I was.  Might have been via his PAGD replication.  Don't know and don't care.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
@Poynt99One question we should ask here is ---- should we blindly accept the statements of persons who have never succeeded at FE? Personally I have little interest in the opinions of people who have never succeeded because quite simply they have never succeeded :D. This is equivalent to seeking advice from the worst race car driver on how to beat the best race car driver, it is like seeking financial advice from a homeless man who has lost everything and makes no sense whatsoever.
Regards
AC
I was simply stating what happened. Don't read too much into it. I don't necessarily agree that his post should have been deleted (it shouldn't have, even though I disagree with him), but he should however be put on moderation for other posts he's made, that's for certain.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Guest
AC:

Quote
I would agree and if we want to understand the reason as to why a standard generator works so poorly we can pass a very strong neo magnet past a block of aluminum. When we do this it is as if the magnet just entered a bowl of jello and all motion is resisted which is a similar to the reason why a standard generator requires so much effort to turn under load.

You can't forget that a standard generator is working properly when it offers resistance to turning when it is driving a load.  There is no such thing as a "better" generator that will offer less resistance when driving a certain load.  i.e.; a generator that is 100% efficient will require 20 watts of mechanical input power to put 20 watts of electrical power into a load.  It's impossible for it to do any better than that.

Anyway, we are off to the races.  I am looking forward to seeing the replications.

The bare-bones of the setup is that moving magnets pass by pick-up coils that are driving a load.  The fact that you have seven pick-up coils each connected to a full-wave bridge rectifier and sharing a common power output bus is incidental, it's just window dressing.  The same thing applies to the 9/8 arrangement for the seven pick-up coils (and two power coils) and the the eight rotor magnets.  That's just a mechanical arrangement to stagger the timing of the output pulses from the pick-up coils so they fire off in sequence and each one gets a time slice for driving the load.

You have two drive coils that fire for every rotor magnet pass, eight firings per revolution.  Every time the two drive coils fire, you get 14 output pulses from the seven pick-up coils and four missing (teeth) pulses.  If the rotor is turning at 120 RPM, then the output pulse repetition rate is (2 x 8 x 18) = 288 pulses per second.   When you factor in the "missing teeth" you get (2 x 8 x 14) = 224 pulses per second.

Each one of those pulses is due to a rotor magnet either approaching or departing from a pick-up coil.  When the pulses are driving a load current flows and you get a little "pulse" of Lenz law drag on the rotor from the particular pick-up coil that is driving the load at a particular instant.  This extracts rotational energy from the rotor which is then replenished by the firing of the two drive coils.

I don't see anything magical here, I just see a straight-on generator setup and a straight-on pulse motor driving it.

Like I said, looking forward to seeing more results from all parties and especially interested in the replicators!

MileHigh

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
If this keeps up, George Soros will sell his gold and buy magnets...hahaha
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1194
Gyula:

This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time.  I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated.  The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.

In a regular motor when you put it under mechanical load the RPMs go down and as a result of this the counter-EMF generated in the rotor decreases and therefore it draws more current.  The extra power associated with the extra current draw is burned off in the mechanical load.  You don't have this phenomenon happening with a pulse motor.

Nonetheless, this could still be looked into.  I just don't think it is particularly special in comparison with the apparent over unity from the generator and the self-running.

MileHigh

Hi MH,

Again, I agree in general with what you answered that (in many pulse motors shown) the input current goes down when the output is put under load. One example is Thane Heins who does not care (unfortunately) how much the total input power is, he considers only the decrease in current and calculates power with that value to get COP > 1, and I disagree with this method.

BUT I wrote ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg13697#msg13697 ): the anomaly to be explained was why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied. This is not the same situation like referred to above and in Romero's setup the total input current is considered,  in fact any change (which is very very small by the way) in input current is NOT considered.

Here is another quote from you I would like to address because it has remained unanswered in this forum but not on overunity.com forum:

...
This observation from Gotoluc is interesting:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3842.msg284752#msg284752

The battery voltage drops when the light bulb load is applied as shown on the digital multimeter.  That's implying that when the battery is outputting a pulse of current to transfer power into the load, it's a higher-current pulse.   So how come the digital current meter is not showing a higher current consumption?  My assumption would be that when the light bulb load is applied that the battery voltage drops because its outputting more energy per output pulse of current for a higher average power output.  In other words there is higher current flowing in the pulse itself.  So I am mystified and that is worth investigating further with a scope and CSR.


The answer was given by Romero a bit earlier than gotoluc asked it (he did not notice it) and member lanenal quoted it to gotoluc, here it is:

I had few questions from the 'replicators' here about voltage on the battery going down when the load is on.
The reason for that is that from the output bridge rectifier I am using one diode to send power back to the battery to keep it charged.When the 20watt bulb is connected the power going back to the battery is reduced resulting that slight voltage drop.


and member lanenal added: Basically from my understanding, the 20w bulb is too heavy a load for the system...if it were a 5w bulb, you should see no voltage drop at all.

This clarifies gotoluc correct observation and I think for correctness sake this should also be mentioned in this forum too.  In fact, from gotoluc pictures on the current consumptions and from the video you can see that the load does not influence the actual input current draw at all! (The change in amper draw from 0.92 to 0.94 Amper and back comes from the change in the available output power FOR the charging, the bulb drains from the available total output power hence less power remains for charging back.)

rgds,  Gyula

   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1194

I would also like to mention that RomeroUK has started building a second setup with higher output power as a goal.
When he is ready with it,  Stefan Hartmann will personally visit him and surely report his findings.

Gyula
   
Group: Guest
Gyula:

Quote
BUT I wrote ( http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg13697#msg13697  ): the anomaly to be explained was why the input current changes only a very little when the load is applied. This is not the same situation like referred to above and in Romero's setup the total input current is considered,  in fact any change (which is very very small by the way) in input current is NOT considered.

I am not sure about the current consumption issue.  I am not sure I understand your statement about Romero's setup not being the same.  Honestly this stuff could be resolved on the bench.  Since you have a motor, perhaps you would be tempted.

Quote
I had few questions from the 'replicators' here about voltage on the battery going down when the load is on.
The reason for that is that from the output bridge rectifier I am using one diode to send power back to the battery to keep it charged.When the 20watt bulb is connected the power going back to the battery is reduced resulting that slight voltage drop.

and member lanenal added: Basically from my understanding, the 20w bulb is too heavy a load for the system...if it were a 5w bulb, you should see no voltage drop at all.

This clarifies gotoluc correct observation and I think for correctness sake this should also be mentioned in this forum too.  In fact, from gotoluc pictures on the current consumptions and from the video you can see that the load does not influence the actual input current draw at all! (The change in amper draw from 0.92 to 0.94 Amper and back comes from the change in the available output power FOR the charging, the bulb drains from the available total output power hence less power remains for charging back.)

Which diode?  It won't work if you only connect one diode.  Perhaps Romero can give a more complete description and Groundloop's schematic can be updated.

For me this is not clear yet.  The battery acts like a short-circuit to it's operating potential.  A little tiny pick-up coil discharging into the battery will most likely barely affect the battery voltage at all.  The coil will just short-out directly into the battery.

I will discuss this more in the next posting.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2011-05-08, 23:10:02 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest
Gyula:

Quoting you from OU:

Quote
Thank you for the tips. I have had my Muller for 8 years. I have tried several 100th of variations
for motor driving and generator outputs. My Muller is made in a CNC machine. All the coils are
factory made. So there is not much I can tune. All I can do is trying to add Ferrite cores to
my coils. There is no way I can get my magnets out of the rotor to try all the same pole out.
The magnets are glued to the rotor with a strong Epoxy. So I'm stuck with the NSNSNSNS configuration.
I have no spare time to build a new Muller now. But I will get time next winter. Then I will build
an Acrylic one and make as a close replica to your Muller as possible.

If you add ferrite cores it sounds like you will be able to have a great replication going based on your description.  I realize that you are going to hold off on replicating so this is just an academic discussion.  The best place for getting the ferrite cores is to follow the trail.  Didn't Romero state that he got them from chokes inside an old CRT monitor or something?  Just go onto Digikey and look for the equivalent chokes and pop the ferrite cores out of them.  I assume that they will be cheap.

You are not stuck with your rotor magnet configuration because it doesn't matter.  The pick-up coil outputs go through a full-wave bridge rectifier and you get a double-hump voltage pulse output.  You get the identical double-hump irrespective of the rotor magnet orientation, or the stator magnet orientation.

I am not sure how you drive your rotor with the alternating magnet orientations but I assume that you have it figured out.

Going back to the question of the current consumption, all that you need to is put one or more current-sensing resistors in the circuit and make some scope measurements.

Without a scope I would be very tempted to measure the power going into the DC-to-DC converter.  With a filtering capacitor across the pulse train output from the bridge rectifiers you might have near-DC for higher rotor RPMs.  So all that you have to do is put an ammeter between the bridge rectifier output and the input to the DC-to-DC converter.  Measure the voltage and current and calculate the power going into the DC-to-DC converter.  That's the amount of power being produced by your pick-up coils into the DC-to-DC converter load.  Then see how that relates back to the input power measurement and also to the output power measurement of the DC-to-DC converter itself into the actual load.  Experiment with-load, without-load, etc.

I know that people are going to rush to make self-runners.  If they are not successful then making the three power measurements described above would be the logical place to go.

One of the things that a lot of experimenters don't realize is that the amount of output power you can measure from your device is dependent on the load itself.  So if you want to be thorough, you will experiment with how the motor operates with a series of different loads.

MileHigh
   
Group: Tech Wizard
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1194
Hi MH,

To answer your last but one post, all I can say is that in your quated answer to me yesterday you answered oranges while I talk about apples, that is all, sorry.

The current consumption isue you brought up in your yesterday answer  in general for pulse motors is not valid for Romero setup because input current in his setup does not change at all when output is loaded.  You wrote: This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time.  I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated.  The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
This has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).

The other issue with the charging diode was valid for the non looped video demo what gotoluc observed (it is the 12 minute long video) where Romero used part of the output power for charging back the input battery.  This is not valid for the looped back setup where the battery is removed and no need for Groundloop to update the schematic.

And now in you last post above you seem to mix me up with member Groundloop.... for you wrote you quoted me from ou.com while what you quoted was written by Groundloop.

Please be more attentive...

Thanks, Gyula
   
Group: Guest
Hi MH,

To answer your last but one post, all I can say is that in your quated answer to me yesterday you answered oranges while I talk about apples, that is all, sorry.

The current consumption isue you brought up in your yesterday answer  in general for pulse motors is not valid for Romero setup because input current in his setup does not change at all when output is loaded.  You wrote: This is something that is seen with pulse motors all the time.  I am sure we have all seen dozens and dozens of clips where this is demonstrated.  The input current to the motor goes down when you put it under some kind of load.
This has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).

The other issue with the charging diode was valid for the non looped video demo what gotoluc observed (it is the 12 minute long video) where Romero used part of the output power for charging back the input battery.  This is not valid for the looped back setup where the battery is removed and no need for Groundloop to update the schematic.

And now in you last post above you seem to mix me up with member Groundloop.... for you wrote you quoted me from ou.com while what you quoted was written by Groundloop.

Please be more attentive...

Thanks, Gyula

Good points Gyula. Old school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.

cheers
chrisC
   
Group: Guest
Gyula:

Sorry about the mistake quoting the wrong person.

Quote
This has nothing to do with Romero setup (orange-apple comparison).

I disagree.  The Romero setup is driven just like any typical Bedini pulse motor.  But I can't comment about the current consumption issue without the proper information.

Romero's comment about connecting a single diode back to the battery having the ability to keep the battery voltage higher doesn't make sense.  There is a small chance that somebody will investigate this.

ChrisC:

Quote
Old school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.

For the clip where Romero shows more power out than power in, I explained that Romero's measurement is no good.  For the self-running clip, that's only one piece of evidence.  People should require more evidence before they decide an over unity claim is true.  Many more measurements should be made on Romero's motor and there should be successful replications.

My best guess right now is that all of the replications will work the way the "old school of thought" says they should work.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Lawrence:

Quote
Power comes out (positive waveform) but there is brought-in energy coming back (negative waveform).

You are playing your "lead-out lead-in" game one more time.  Your statement above about Romero's scope waveform is pure nonsense, it's totally wrong.  Both the positive and the negative-going pulses represent the potential for the coil to output energy.  There is no "brought-in energy coming back."

You are doing a disservice to others when you post this kind of stuff.

Quote
If Rumerouk had done the full thing – Instantaneous Voltage, Instantaneous Current and Instantaneous Power for both Input and Output, the picture will be much clearer.

Quote
I had the misfortune of debating with Poynt99 with Harvey as the Moderator.  Instead of relying on the waveform, the debate ended with “using the mean value” of the Instantaneous Power as the “recommended” method.

Using the mean value of the instantaneous power as per what Poynt said in the second quote above is identical to what you say in the first quote above.  You seem to be implying that they are different but they are in fact the same.

Certainly making these instantaneous measurements would be helpful but I don't know if any of the replicators have DSOs.  The good news is that this is a perfect application for PC scope software.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
...
What I mean to say is the static magnets with their static fields will have no influence on the way the pick-up coils respond to the rotor magnet fly-bys.  The pick-up coils will only "see" the moving magnets on the rotor.  The static magnets on top and on the bottom of the pick-up coil pair will be "invisible" as far as the pick-up coil pair is concerned.
...

I totally agree about this point. It is a key point that is not well understood. A static field simply adds to a varying field but a coil "feels" only the varying field. It is the reason why such things like MEG or Flynn's magnetic parallel path technology gave not one positive result, we don't recover energy from a static field.

The objection that the static field can "modulate" the parameters of non linear elements in a magnetic circuit, changes nothing in the energy balance. For example, for a static field to change the permeability of a coil core near the saturation, a work must be done to rotate the magnetic domains of the material. This work is not extracted from the field of the permanent magnet. It is obtained from the mechanical work for changing the relative position of the permanent magnet and the core. Even though the permeability decreases with the distance magnet/core, there is at any instant of time an action/reaction force F. An elementary work dW=F*dx is done for moving the pieces, to be integrated along the path for the total work without forgetting that F depends on x in a not straightforward manner because µ is also depending on the distance magnet/core.

Overunity would be obtained if such a work was not the same when the magnet approaches the core than when it moves away. Until now, according to physics laws, the magnetic force derives from a potential, so the work is independent of the path. So we can be sure that a reasoning to explain overunity but using only terms and equations of conventional electromagnetism, is erroneous. Either a hidden source of energy, or different rules than conventional EM, must be specified. I am interested in propositions about one or the other point but I didn't see one from participants here and unfortunately I must confess that I have not one myself. In any case, I think that the experimental evidence must be first provided because science applies only to observable facts and only new facts need new theories.

   
Group: Guest
...
Old school of thought always seem to find a cleverer way to explain stuff they have never seen before.

Until today, "stuff never seen before" is in the best case only "stuff already seen" but now misinterpreted.
New schools of thought, if we can speak of "thoughts" concerning them (there are not two of them saying the same thing with enough formalism), never succeeded in proving their assertions of overunity. Until proof of the contrary, i.e. by credible third party duplications of a self-running device, there is no OU. So explanations from "old school of thought" applying to conventional phenomena misinterpreted by the others, are the right ones.

   
Group: Guest
This is what we see and we know those traveling off the edge never return. So the fact remains the Earth is flat. ....

I can understand the viewpoints because I held the same so dear for such a long time.

The only one with value defaults to empirical proof.
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 37
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-26, 19:46:21