It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
If you go through the site you will note it is not at all what you would expect. One of the other pages is a pitch for a book and it all links to "stop.org.br". That site is also to get into your wallet.
Originally posted by GoldenAge
Originally posted by rickyrrr
Here is the one argument that may be convincing: This motor has been supposedly demonstrated by recharging a third battery from the first two. If this motor really returned energy it would not require three batteries. In fact, it would require no batteries at all. Come on, think about it! why would batteries be required for a device that produces more energy that it consumes? a simple piece of wire or even a resistor could be replaced for the battery and there should be a positive voltage measured over that resistor as the supposed motor spins freely from its own energy, while turning a surplus to the resistor.
There is simply no reason why a battery would be needed even such contrived reasons as "to provide an initial something something" as is usually quoted in these videos.
My understanding is that for some reason you can't use the Radiant energy (or "Vacuum" energy, or "Scalar" energy) directly. You have to catch it and send it to a battery and the battery is what converts it to the form of energy that can power a load. So that is why these systems usually have at least two batteries - one running the motor and the other tapping the Radiant energy and charging itself up. (Bedini explains this much better in EFTV Part 2, you should watch it if you haven't already.)
We can sit and debate the merit of these systems, and indeed it has been done many times in many threads. But what I am saying is, the schematics for these are readily available now, so why not take it a step further and test it out for real? That is the ATS way, isn't it?
Originally posted by rickyrrr
At some point the system has to *return* energy. whatever it does. If it is capturing energy from the environment and has a COP of over unity, but still an efficiency of under unity, whatever way you dice it or slice it, the extra energy has to be *somewhere*....
I'd like to see that energy across a pair of wires coming out of the device. Measurement in joules, and output energy has to be greater than the energy initially contained in the batteries that are part of the system combined with any rotational energy imparted into it to "crank it up". That is not too much to ask. Put energy somewhere *else* and then as a show of good faith show us it didn't come from your initial energy sources.
Fake free energy devices come and go every couple of years. You would think that they should be motivated to show themselves as different as possible from all the fakers out there, especially by showing in good faith that they have produced a net output.
Originally posted by rickyrrr
Well, conventional batteries are built to store or return electrical energy, either by pushing a current against its voltage (much like pushing against a spring) or allowing the battery's own voltage to push against some other load. How come these guys found a new kind of energy that batteries not previously designed to handle are now seemingly capable of transforming?
It would then appear that their vacuum energy converting batteries are the secret magic ingredient in their system wouldn't you think?
-rrr
Originally posted by Gamechanger
Wait this is #%@$ing amazing! A free energy device whose inventors haven't mysteriously disappeared or been suicided?? Is this for real? I can hardly believe it.
Bump bump bump bump bump
Edit for spelling...
[edit on 28-10-2008 by Gamechanger]