Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...

reply to post by wagnificent

There are certainly people who claim that overunity devices are easy to build, and probably many are scams. Busting a scam is not the same as busting a concept

The laws of thermodynamics busts the concept. That is evidence of absence that is evidence to the contrary.

t takes substantial bravery to change your way of life; the people who would actually try to develop overunity are in the marginal minority, and there are plenty of stories about those types of people being bought off, threatened or silenced.

So called "over unity" inventors have claimed powering their houses, to building spaceships that took off through the ceiling of their living room and into oblivion. You are talking about subtle changes and subtle developments that have been suppressed or looked over because of economic factors. The problem with something revolutionary that is better than a current technology 100 fold, is that there is no economic benefit to suppressing it.

I have a dohickey that is competitive, by all means its in your interest to suppress it. I have a dohickey that provides 100 times the performance than yours? Well, if these people are so apt to silence and "off" people, best interest that they simple "off" me and rake in unlimited profits from my technology.

Testing overunity through mathematics and computer models assumes that our current understanding of physics is complete, which we all know is not true. The only way to test overunity is in an actual experiment.

Current physics models may not fully understand the entirety of the known universe, but that doesn't limit it's understanding of very basic things like most over unity devices are.

Our economic model strives for ponzi-esque expansion, not sustainability. Thus a durable, long-lasting product is contrary to the interests of our entire economic model (and especially contrary to the interests of a handful of powerful individuals).

Maybe in another industry besides power. Power industry is at each others throats fighting over coal, nuclear and gas. There are interest groups that hammer each other in the public spotlight and spend millions claiming why their technology should be used instead of the other.

They are ruthless, and if one has a means to build something that provided power generation at little cost with little pollution (more expense because of clean up and containment) it is obvious that they would exploit it as much as possible.

Originally posted by wagnificent
1) Overunity devices are easy to build

There are certainly people who claim that overunity devices are easy to build, and probably many are scams. Busting a scam is not the same as busting a concept, and the claims of a scam do not represent all overunity arguments.

However, it all comes back to one vital shortcoming: evidence. There's always an excuse why proper scientific evidence is not presented, only hearsay and peep shows.

2) Since overunity devices are easy to build, the average Joe should have built it by now

Even if overunity was easy to build, people do not necessarily take advantage of things that could make their lives better. In my experience the average Joe (myself included) is afraid of significant change, even if it has great potential. It takes substantial bravery to change your way of life; the people who would actually try to develop overunity are in the marginal minority, and there are plenty of stories about those types of people being bought off, threatened or silenced.

As I outlined in my OP, if there's a means of saving a # tonne of money, legal or otherwise, people wiould be all over it.

3) Overunity can be explained by our current model of physics

Testing overunity through mathematics and computer models assumes that our current understanding of physics is complete, which we all know is not true. The only way to test overunity is in an actual experiment.

So how can you test it if all the equipment relies on physics that is "wrong"? Do we just take people's claims at face value with no objective evidence?

4) If overunity existed, investors would be eager to invest in overunity devices

If overunity is demonstrated, investors could make a decent profit from selling the devices, but it would be a one-time sale (unless they break frequently). A large number of one-time sales are nice, but recurring profits are better. The energy industry, which is a huge chunk of the economy, has already secured recurring profits. Why change to a one-time sale?

The "one time sale" argument is false. Most electrical products are "one time sales" but they still need servicing and replacing. If your argument held water, solar panels would be suppressed technology.

Our economic model strives for ponzi-esque expansion, not sustainability. Thus a durable, long-lasting product is contrary to the interests of our entire economic model (and especially contrary to the interests of a handful of powerful individuals).

If there is a profit to be made, it will make it to the market. What about all of the heavy industries? Office buildings? Server farms? Particle accelerators? Why are they paying through the nose when they could save millions a year in electricity by using an "over unity" device? There is simply no plausible argument for why such devices have remained in the fringes of pseudo-science and quackery if they actually worked.

Originally posted by cupocoffee
Fine then. To answer your questions,

Why aren't the believers building over-unity devices and going off the grid? Because:

- it costs thousands of dollars
- it requires engineers, equipment, and a lab or house to build and test in
- it's hard, and there's no guarantee of success
- no one else wants to help
etc

You missed the main reason!

None of them actually work....

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by john_bmth

 

The plans on the internet are not likely to be the real deal. It's called disinformation - it's there to mislead folks in to believing they don't work most likely.

How do we build one then?

These threads are always like a train wreck of education; tough to look away.

1)Lets start by buying a college physics textbook at Amazon.com
Learn a little bit about actually proven laws that say "you can't get something for nothing.."

So you at least have a chance to spot B.S.psuedo science.

And So we don't have to dive into scam psuedo-science websites that claim room temperature"miso soup" is a"plasma".

2) and drop all unprovable assumptions:"I.e. Tesla created hundreds of over unity devices that"worked". Show us one so we can look at the technology.

3)And never, ever, use a word you can't yourself define.Otherwise you are buying into "technical sounding" noise. If you don't know exactly what a "plasma " is don't spout off " Why: it's' the secret sauce in Keshe's plastic pop bottle that makes the magic happen"

I seee:hmmm yeah...yup pour the "Plasma" into here:add the ACETIC ACID(I.E.vinegar) and the"suppressed" BICARBONATE "CRYSTAL MODULATION CATALYST"($9.95/kg+shipping and handling paypal only please) (I.E.baking soda) and SEE....!

Torsional Physics 4th dimensional toroidal bubbles appear "FREE ENERGY IS RELEASED!

4) Give credit where its due. Realize plenty of brilliant educated and accredited people have come before you. They have access to all the knowledge; speculation and imagination available, benefiting from All the advances in the last 100_+ years.. .And none of them are shutting down the oil industries.

"Before there was something, there was nothing"


So either that statement is wrong or our laws of Physics are wrong.

Originally posted by ken10
"Before there was something, there was nothing"


So either that statement is wrong or our laws of Physics are wrong.

edit on 20-9-2012 by ken10 because: (no reason given)

Weak, classic:"all or nothing" logical fallacy( you look itup)
www.philosophicalsociety.com...

But: Kind of a philosophical question isn't it?
Religious people would say God is/was and always will be.

People more grounded in the sciences might say:" The universe and all its physical laws is/was and always will be".
We are just chimps who showed up along a few moments of the Timeline and had the gumption to ask a few questions.

NONE OF THE ABOVE NEGATES THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. "KEN1O".Until we can take advantage of a proven major breakthrough like "string" or "m theory"( higgs boson anybody)We live in a 3d 4d(?) existence.

I'm starting to hear that very train I mentioned above"a coming"...

Jesus I gotta' go spend my time on something productive like"combing out my hamster or organizing my toe nail clippings" collection).
Let me know if Cern or Fermilab chimes in with a breakthrough here.:

reply to post by 46ACE

People more grounded in the sciences might say:" The universe and all its physical laws is/was and always will be".

Funny I thought they all believed in the "Big Bang" Theory.

Its all guesses by a group of people with letters after their names, (and who have been wrong on countless occasions) but to my mind there must have been a time before anything existed.


btw the vid is very childish.

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by 46ACE

 

People more grounded in the sciences might say:" The universe and all its physical laws is/was and always will be".

Funny I thought they all believed in the "Big Bang" Theory.

Its all guesses by a group of people with letters after their names, (and who have been wrong on countless occasions) but to my mind there must have been a time before anything existed.


btw the vid is very childish.

edit on 20-9-2012 by ken10 because: (no reason given)

"hypothesis": a best guess or theory to be attacked by adversarial aggressive experimentation.
Pass enough verifiable experimentation and a simple" hypothesis" firms up into a valid theory.

Which could be proven wrong anytime with the introduction of new information.
Its the best we humans can do with some kind of verifiable,peer reviewed process to expand our knowledge..

IMHO "big bang" would be considered part of the natural "universe".and whatever primordial ("nothingness") it sprang from...nobody knows what to call the proto-"universe" before matter coalesced out.

"Natural order": As we could theoretically be collapsing back into a "singularity" in a few billion years if there's abovea certain amount of matter; and the universe stops expanding to start the cycle all over again......

Glad you liked the video: but
You're a Brit (if I remember, our last "altercation") English is your first language. if you are going to post cryptic two line all or nothing" responses; I',m going to call you for additional clarification and evidence..
[editb]edit on 20-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)