Can you produce one slightest scrap of rational data about any one of those "inventions"? I've not heard of the other scam artists, but I am absolutely certain Stan Meyer never, ever produced anything but hot air and lies. None of his devices could have been constructed - he conveniently forgot to specify any components.

I can patent a device that releases energy from firefly tails. The Patent Office issues a patent based on the perceived uniqueness of the device/methodology. They have no interest or ability to determine if it works.

As none of these people is immensely wealthy from licensing their technology, we must assume that they are, as Stan Meyer was, scam artists. With no data, circuits, of demonstrations, we have to assume that every word they have and will utter are lies.

There is no problem researching "this". Published fear of conspiracies and shadowy organizations are the greater part of any material available from these liars. It's part of the scam - send us money, and you can feel as if you have defied "them".

All ya gotta be is gullible. Or do you somehow believe that an overunity device would somehow not be able to generate profits?

 

The problem is, if you research this, there really is a huge opposition to any technology that threatens the oil monopoly, It's not a conspiracy theory.

But it IS a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory is all you have.

Fact is, there is NOTHING that is a threat to the oil industry - except nuclear energy.

Name me ONE THING that does what petroleum can do. There is no energy source like it, period. (Again, except for nuclear energy).

"Big Oil" hasn't shot down any competitors, because there are none. We didn't build a civilization on petroleum because of "Big Oil", we did it because petroleum is all there is that can power our cars, buses, trucks and trains. Sure, could have electric cars (on a limited basis) and electric trains and all-electric homes - but that would require massive amounts of generation - all dependant on the same oil we use now.

Again, unless we went nuclear in a BIG way (which will never, ever happen). We are stuck with petroleum. We always will be.

It's no more complicated than that.

 

The problem is, if you research this, there really is a huge opposition to any technology that threatens the oil monopoly, It's not a conspiracy theory.

If this is so, you should have little trouble providing sound evidence of such. An oil war is not evidence of opposition to new technology. Neither are profits.

The oil companies know there product could be rendederd completly worthless with competing technologies, so they do what they can to protect their bottom line!

The oil companies can well afford to buy into any new technology (and have done so where real tech is concerned) and make just as much profit as they do now. Rich people don't get rich by being stupid, and they don't stay rich by being narrow-minded.

 

When the "experts" say it can't be done, what they are really saying is, it hasn't been done before and no one has figured out a way to do it. (YET)

 

No, they aren't. While many claims of something being impossible are wrong, and Scientific Laws do change with new data and facts, this doesn't mean they are all doomed to be removed or changed.

The reason they are called laws is because they have never been shown to be violated, and all the wishful thinking in the world can not make it so.

You may believe you have telekinesis, but I'm willing to bet if you jump from a 100ft cliff you will run into reality very fast, at the bottom.

Wishing someone will find a way around an inconvenient fact is fantasy, you go further working within the system. Study the rules hard enough, and you might find a loophole. The act of studying and documenting is called science.

 

I find it interesting that there seems to have come into being a sort of populist idea that a person with no scientific background to somehow cloud his mind is going to be able to extract free energy from the universe.

It's a wonderful fairy tale, but a bit short on any measurable results, so far. Lot of scam artists like the sound of it, though - it means they can make up nonsense explanations for the junk they try to market. The best part, for them, is that their audience doesn't approach the explanations critically, so little details like total contradictions escape notice.

 

When the "experts" say it can't be done, what they are really saying is, it hasn't been done before and no one has figured out a way to do it. (YET)

This looks like a good juncture to introduce the Warp Drive, even if it is from FoxNews.

It shows the distinct difference between what science says is impossible (over unity) and what science considers not yet done.

John

 

The article is cute, but meaningless. Dark matter and dark energy were posited to cover an apparent discrepancy in the rate of expansion in the universe. It turns out that a (relatively) minor adjustment in local conditions removes the need for either to explain the observable universe.

CERN finding the Higgs particle will be evidence that some conditions are possible wherein the speed of light can be exceeded.

 

No, they aren't. While many claims of something being impossible are wrong, and Scientific Laws do change with new data and facts, this doesn't mean they are all doomed to be removed or changed.

The reason they are called laws is because they have never been shown to be violated, and all the wishful thinking in the world can not make it so.

You may believe you have telekinesis, but I'm willing to bet if you jump from a 100ft cliff you will run into reality very fast, at the bottom.

Wishing someone will find a way around an inconvenient fact is fantasy, you go further working within the system. Study the rules hard enough, and you might find a loophole. The act of studying and documenting is called science.

Hmmm! speaking of jumping off a cliff... 200 years ago no one thought it possible for man to fly because of the law of gravity...but you know what? Someone figured out a way for men to fly without violating those natural laws. All I am saying is, just because it hasn't been done, doesn't meant it can't be done!

"Based upon what we think is true, It shouldn't be possible" is an acceptable answer but NEVER "it can't be done". whatever man can dream, he can achieve (sooner or later)

 

Sorry to pop the bubble, but birds were flying before men. The problem was a power source, not gravity. Otto Lilienthal made a series of quite successful gliders years before the Wrights cobbled up an engine.

Is there some specific discovery you feel is being somehow overlooked? And is there some specific means that may attain it?

 

200 years ago no one thought it possible for man to fly because of the law of gravity

You have proof of this of course? You can prove DaVinci didn't exist? You can prove hot-air baloons were a hoax?

All I am saying is, just because it hasn't been done, doesn't meant it can't be done!

All I am saying is, just because you want it to be done, doesn't mean it gets done!

"Based upon what we think is true, It shouldn't be possible" is an acceptable answer but NEVER "it can't be done".

Po-TAY-to is acceptable but never po-TAH-to?

whatever man can dream, he can achieve (sooner or later)

I can dream of dragons, wizards, and faeries. I leave it to you to achieve them (sooner or later.)

 

Sorry to pop the bubble, but birds were flying before men. The problem was a power source, not gravity. Otto Lilienthal made a series of quite successful gliders years before the Wrights cobbled up an engine.

Is there some specific discovery you feel is being somehow overlooked? And is there some specific means that may attain it?

Thank you! That is Exactly my point. Man had never before overcome the effects of gravity, therefore many said it couldn't be done. Yet someone observed that Birds had no trouble, therefore it COULD be done. Man simply needed to learn how to do it!

When we observe a phenomenon, rather than saying it isn't possible, we should investigate, study, and experiment to try to understand how it is occurring.

Sorry if I seem too open minded, but there are so many of these folks with Electrical Engineering degrees claiming to demonstrate output which measures greater than their input. They claim to tap ZPE or AETHER or some other external energy source. Then the next thing you know they have met with some unfortunate accident or some other event that causes them to never be heard from again. One must admit is is juicy stuff for any conspiracy theorist.

Sorry if I am being too philosophical here. But I am sure I don't know everything about anything. and I am equally confident that the same can be said for everyone on this forum.

As far as discoveries being overlooked... I don't know. Are there?

 

Being open minded does not mean gullible. Stay open to facts. There are reasons over unity will never happen. We may find new energy sources that can be exploited, but the chasm between the two is huge. Understanding the subject and blindly accepting a myth is the difference between science and fantasy. Being a student means being willing to learn and study, opposite of what the over unity crowd does. Trying to understand basics is hard work, something a lot of folks aren't willing to do.

People, not science, may have said flight was impossible. Why the difference, because there were blatant examples otherwise. No such example exists that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.

 

When you state:

But I am sure I don't know everything about anything. and I am equally confident that the same can be said for everyone on this forum.

- perhaps you might concede that some level of electronic experience does, indeed, exist in the membership of AAC.

Further, you might also examine the several critical reviews we have made of the free energy scammers, and concede that we might be entirely correct about the individual scams.

Claiming open-mindedness while refusing to believe a preconceived notion might not be correct seems a contradiction.

 

You have proof of this of course? You can prove DaVinci didn't exist? You can prove hot-air baloons were a hoax?

All I am saying is, just because you want it to be done, doesn't mean it gets done!

Po-TAY-to is acceptable but never po-TAH-to?

I can dream of dragons, wizards, and faeries. I leave it to you to achieve them (sooner or later.)

Great exchange!

I submit there have been Dragons (leviathan) and Wizards (witches & sourcerers) and everyone knows Faeries thrive in San Francisco

 

When you state: - perhaps you might concede that some level of electronic experience does, indeed, exist in the membership of AAC.

Further, you might also examine the several critical reviews we have made of the free energy scammers, and concede that we might be entirely correct about the individual scams.

Claiming open-mindedness while refusing to believe a preconceived notion might not be correct seems a contradiction.

I didn't mean that to sound like ya'all don't know anything, just that the universe is full of unexplained phenomena. So just because we haven't discovered it yet, doesn't mean it isn't there.

I do have a great deal of respect for all of ya'alls ability and experience.

 

You want weird science, read up on quantum physics.

One of my favorite sites,

http://www.physorg.com/

regularly has articles on various subjects, especially quantum physics. As with the front end of any science, there is a lot of contradictory information. It doesn't mean everything we ever knew is wrong, but maybe some new facts and information will come out of it eventually.

 

Being open minded does not mean gullible. Stay open to facts. There are reasons over unity will never happen. We may find new energy sources that can be exploited, but the chasm between the two is huge. Understanding the subject and blindly accepting a myth is the difference between science and fantasy. Being a student means being willing to learn and study, opposite of what the over unity crowd does. Trying to understand basics is hard work, something a lot of folks aren't willing to do.

People, not science, may have said flight was impossible. Why the difference, because there were blatant examples otherwise. No such example exists that violates the Laws of Thermodynamics.

That's why I'm in this discussion, to learn. That's why I will spend a great deal of time and effort experimenting rather than taking peoples word that something works. Even if what you say is true, In the end, I will have failed ONLY if I have not learned something and only if I have not enjoyed the journey.

I do owe a debt of gratitude to what you call the "over unity" crowd. It was their claims that re-generated my interest in learning more about the world in which we live. I have learned more about physics, atomic chemistry, magnetism, and electronics in the last 6 months than I ever wanted to know. But I need and want to learn more.

I agree that "Over Unity" cannot occur in a closed system. So what is it exactly in their claims that violates the laws of thermodynamics if the system is an open system?

... Speaking of which, Doesnt the law of conservation of energy say that energy is neither created nor destroyed? So where does EMF reside before it becomes EMF?

 

As some other form of energy, or the potential as such. Batteries store energy as latent chemical energy, but it is not released until current is drawn from them.

Take a toy motor (DC), turn the shaft with your fingers. Now short the electrical contacts, and then try turning the shaft. It will be much harder, because the energy will be used as it is generated. In this case the motor is a transducer, it will convert mechanical to electricity, or visa versa.

 

Man had never before overcome the effects of gravity, therefore many said it couldn't be done.

You have proof this was said? Let's see your evidence.

When we observe a phenomenon, rather than saying it isn't possible, we should investigate, study, and experiment to try to understand how it is occurring.

The phenomenon we observe is called "The Second Law of Thermodynamics." I suggest you investigate, study, and experiment to try to understand how it occurs.

Sorry if I seem too open minded, but there are so many of these folks with Electrical Engineering degrees claiming to demonstrate output which measures greater than their input.

Again, where is your EVIDENCE? Can you provide the name of even ONE EE making such claims?