No, it's not.
Look, there's no end to all the energy scam artists out there. You can dig up link after link after link. Same with male member expansion pills. As soon as any intelligent person sees that, or worse yet, the terms "over unity" or "free energy" (without the modifier "Gibbs"), the BS meter should peg.
Tell you what. I'm totally uninterested in trying to clean the Augean stables. Pick one. Just one. The best, most indisputable one. And we'll investigate it. But you have to agree in advance that after that one, you'll stop throwing out more BS links to scam artists and nutjobs.
Hey Sy, I said my piece, and it didn't get removed as posts may be, at times. That's enough. All I said, was investigate if desired. End of story. I don't recall any emotional content in the posts, either. And I said, 'apparently', the whole way through. I dunno, in the final analysis. I am in no way connected to any of these people. Your choices are yours. The number of people involved, vs the number of points where one might get tripped up, leaves it in an interesting space and place. That's about it. No more on it will ever come from me.
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/patents/Worldpat.htm
This is one portal to the so-called patents, if they are real. Yes, I noted the IP (address bar), etc. Potentially a bit more verification. But we apparently want to leave this alone, I will say no more of it. The US patent system was compromised by corporations and special interests- years ago.
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/patents/Worldpat.htm
This is one portal to the so-called patents, if they are real. Yes, I noted the IP (address bar), etc. Potentially a bit more verification. But we apparently want to leave this alone, I will say no more of it. The US patent system was compromised by corporations and special interests- years ago.
A patent is no indication that something works.
So basically, your idea is to dredge up every nutjob and scam artist imaginable, and instead of saying, "This one has the goods," you dodge the question of which one YOU are willing to stake your own name on. That way, you can't lose: there is an endless supply of yet-another-nutjob/scam-artists, and you can always claim that, well, that's not the one I think is real, it's someone else, but I won't tell you who.
As long as there are people out there whose greed or desperation outreaches their intelligence (we call them "suckers"), there will be people willing to peddle BS schemes and products to them.
So basically, your idea is to dredge up every nutjob and scam artist imaginable, and instead of saying, "This one has the goods," you dodge the question of which one YOU are willing to stake your own name on. That way, you can't lose: there is an endless supply of yet-another-nutjob/scam-artists, and you can always claim that, well, that's not the one I think is real, it's someone else, but I won't tell you who.
As long as there are people out there whose greed or desperation outreaches their intelligence (we call them "suckers"), there will be people willing to peddle BS schemes and products to them.
Careful, Sy, you're starting to sound like me.
I like the new avatar. Is the old avatar the "before" and the new one the "after" photo - the result of eating monatomic gold?
I_F
I like the new avatar. Is the old avatar the "before" and the new one the "after" photo - the result of eating monatomic gold?
I_F
SY said:
Absolutely true, in my opinion.
As for dredging, I'm merely sharing the things I come across. Leaving people to make their own judgement calls. That is not for me to do. I'm not sure what you are looking for in a person or object of consideration (re thread) , Sy.
If I have something I feel is definite, I'll darned well shove it in your face and defend it to the death. Literally. And I won't do it without being able to put one of these objects, in the physical working sense, right in front of your physical person. And I would not do some sort of happy denegration dance, either. I would hope, that if such should happen, that you would share in the wonder and fun of the moment.
I just hope that the world is not so black and white (to some) that the billion shades of grey that exist - are seemingly blocked from the view of folks who speak with such passion about their beliefs, here in this thread. On any given side or position of this arguement.
SY your new avatar looks just like the King of the Irish Kingdom of the OTO, is there something your not telling us !!
Shoog
Shoog
patents
Hey.. looks like Hudson and I both worked on ink-jet patents...!!
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5032464&id=hxIhAAAAEBAJ&dq=ininventor:"lichtenberger"
oops.. wrong hudson I guess.. at least my ideas worked...
John L.
Hey.. looks like Hudson and I both worked on ink-jet patents...!!
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5032464&id=hxIhAAAAEBAJ&dq=ininventor:"lichtenberger"
oops.. wrong hudson I guess.. at least my ideas worked...
John L.
Here's a bit that potentially (hah! atomic joke! I'm sure they are very old groaners for John) drives home my point about science not being the be-all end-all that folks would like it to be. It's a work in motion.
Let's introduce a point of doubt, which is all it takes. This goes for any endeavor. One point of doubt, and the whole edifice comes crashing down. Part of my point is, that in my investigations I'm doing essentially the same thing. I'm not assuming anything, unless it is an attempt at reaching understanding via hypothesis. Like a good scientifically minded investigation does. We have to be wary of pre-judgement and bias..before the fact. Edit: Except, now that I think about it, I assume far less than science does, in my investigations.
I came across this on the first attempt at looking for, for....something I'm not willing to talk about (something else entirely) , but essentially..I hit the heart of the matter (groan!)....right on the head, on the first attempt, first link, first paragraph.
Here's the quote.
Without internal shielding we would expect an atom's weight to equal the sum of its parts. It is established that the atomic weight of an atom is actually less than the sum of the weights of the protons, neutrons and electrons. A helium atom is 99.29% of the weight of its individual parts, which are essentially four hydrogen atoms. This hidden mass is normally called the mass defect. Most of our work for harnessing fission and fusion energy is based on the assumption that atomic energy comes from a mass to energy conversion of the mass defect.
Note the word in bold text. It was also addressed in the original text in the same fashion. So science is..assuming..where the energy comes from. Assuming. Well, that's all fine and dandy. So many holes that we would not get anything done without an assumption or two, now wouldn't we? We need something to hang our hypohesis and experiments off of now, don't we?
Mass defect. hhhmmmm. Well, we can't conclude anything from that ('mass defect') comment, as it would be an out of context assumption. Obviously, it bears further investigation.
See what I mean?
Let's introduce a point of doubt, which is all it takes. This goes for any endeavor. One point of doubt, and the whole edifice comes crashing down. Part of my point is, that in my investigations I'm doing essentially the same thing. I'm not assuming anything, unless it is an attempt at reaching understanding via hypothesis. Like a good scientifically minded investigation does. We have to be wary of pre-judgement and bias..before the fact. Edit: Except, now that I think about it, I assume far less than science does, in my investigations.
I came across this on the first attempt at looking for, for....something I'm not willing to talk about (something else entirely) , but essentially..I hit the heart of the matter (groan!)....right on the head, on the first attempt, first link, first paragraph.
Here's the quote.
Without internal shielding we would expect an atom's weight to equal the sum of its parts. It is established that the atomic weight of an atom is actually less than the sum of the weights of the protons, neutrons and electrons. A helium atom is 99.29% of the weight of its individual parts, which are essentially four hydrogen atoms. This hidden mass is normally called the mass defect. Most of our work for harnessing fission and fusion energy is based on the assumption that atomic energy comes from a mass to energy conversion of the mass defect.
Note the word in bold text. It was also addressed in the original text in the same fashion. So science is..assuming..where the energy comes from. Assuming. Well, that's all fine and dandy. So many holes that we would not get anything done without an assumption or two, now wouldn't we? We need something to hang our hypohesis and experiments off of now, don't we?
Mass defect. hhhmmmm. Well, we can't conclude anything from that ('mass defect') comment, as it would be an out of context assumption. Obviously, it bears further investigation.
See what I mean?
http://home.netcom.com/~sbyers11/inertia.htm
It is interesting and incredibly revealing to note that a very notable majority of the claimed over unity devices are magnetic and/or inertial and/or claimed to be 'gravitational' in nature.
Exactly at the point where science and physics.....assumes.
It is interesting and incredibly revealing to note that a very notable majority of the claimed over unity devices are magnetic and/or inertial and/or claimed to be 'gravitational' in nature.
Exactly at the point where science and physics.....assumes.
KBK said:
ya know... all your ramblings and obtuse non-statements seem to be based on this un-founded statement you seem to fall back on that "scientists" somehow consider their craft as a "be all, end all". far from the truth. Any "scientist" worth a grain of salt and with a speck of humility will admit to an unbounded awe of the unknown and a fascination with what isn't understood. This pablum about monoatomic gold and such is unfounded simply because there is no revelation of any sort of concrete methodology as to its existence... just a bunch of mystical preachings and such, with no corroborated details that withstand any sort of scrutiny.
My own work, detailed above, was in direct contradiction to the idea that amorphous "glassy" metals had, by default, to be brittle and shatter, with no elongation/ductility, and no hope of ever achieving such. No one believed (at the time) that electrodeposited glassy metals could be anything but. They had highly desirable properties, being almost as corrosion resistant as platinum, etc. at 1/100th the cost. But, until my work, brittle as glass and limited therein.
I proved this to be untrue, produced many kgs of said material, (it's being used today) see techmetals 123 below
http://www.finishing.com/Shops/techmetals.shtml
but fought quite an uphill battle to make this a reality. All against the common wisdom of the time (early 80's).
What's this got to do with free energy? Not much, other than to totally dispell your presumptive diatribes about the "scientific method" (or engineering, for that matter) as being somehow short-sighted and blind. When one seeks to hide behind non-disclosure statements, yet proclaim fantastic revelations in direct conflict with established reality, expect a whole lotta grief from those who've produced cogent concrete results using the established methods, rather than pseudoscience and mysticism.
John L.
Very cool John (Au dude). I will investigate your work. (I apologize, more than one John in the thread)
Do you have any more links to look at? Something that describes the materails and properties a bit more than that? Or is the 123 info enough to begin looking?
I am doing no such thing Au dude. Merely an impression. Long story. About half the thread long. In the idea and execution of a good disucssion, one has to take a contrary position, in order to move the whole thing along. It can get messy. Such is life. 🙂
I have a solid and nearly unshakable belief in the scientific method. I live by logic attached to solid and grounded analysis. I'm simply attempting to do some strange work, that is not generally accepted by some. It's bound to get strange. And my reception is bound to not be good at times. Sometimes I get that Narc/Serpico feeling (deserved or not).
So, one time. one lousy time, I fail to include the fact that NOT ALL folks.. believe..science..etc.
And you take me to task for it? 🙂
Balance, psychological balance is key. And I don't see much of it here, at times. One major point I'm trying to make.
Do you have any more links to look at? Something that describes the materails and properties a bit more than that? Or is the 123 info enough to begin looking?
I am doing no such thing Au dude. Merely an impression. Long story. About half the thread long. In the idea and execution of a good disucssion, one has to take a contrary position, in order to move the whole thing along. It can get messy. Such is life. 🙂
I have a solid and nearly unshakable belief in the scientific method. I live by logic attached to solid and grounded analysis. I'm simply attempting to do some strange work, that is not generally accepted by some. It's bound to get strange. And my reception is bound to not be good at times. Sometimes I get that Narc/Serpico feeling (deserved or not).
So, one time. one lousy time, I fail to include the fact that NOT ALL folks.. believe..science..etc.
And you take me to task for it? 🙂
Balance, psychological balance is key. And I don't see much of it here, at times. One major point I'm trying to make.
KBK said:
That's the way science works, you make an assumption and test it. If it fails, chuck it away, if it tests true, use it 'till a better one comes along.
However, that cited paper doesn't seem to be it I'm afraid. I could sit down and write a paper about "eddies in the space time continuum" causing gravitational shadowing, and it would be just as plausible, in fact, I think I could do it better. But without supporting theory, (maths mostly), or testable hypotheses, it would be just as useless.
I tend to keep all the chucked assumptions in a box, out in the garage. Never know when one of their bits might make something else work. Or be leggoed (hobbled together) into something really strange.
Like the guy on the Johhny Carson show one night, who could be given a box full of all kinds of things..and make a bong out of them. Now THAT'S talent. I believe it was the same night that Charleton Heston was on the show. He had just been appointed the head of the NRA. After the third bong came out of the third box of stuff.... he (Heston) pulled out a .38 and threatened to shoot the guy. It was a set-up, of course, but it sure went right into the expected mentality of everyone involved.
Like the guy on the Johhny Carson show one night, who could be given a box full of all kinds of things..and make a bong out of them. Now THAT'S talent. I believe it was the same night that Charleton Heston was on the show. He had just been appointed the head of the NRA. After the third bong came out of the third box of stuff.... he (Heston) pulled out a .38 and threatened to shoot the guy. It was a set-up, of course, but it sure went right into the expected mentality of everyone involved.
KBK said:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/6487211-EargfC/6487211.PDF
try googling "amorphous nickel phosphorus" or "electrodeposited amorphous alloys"
All sorts of details/technical data.
we were using it to make 5000 0.0015" holes +/- 0.000040" in an orifice plate 5' long to print textile paterns on fabric made by Burlington Industries at the time. But it has alot of other uses (diamond turning of automotive lens molds, for instance) google that.
John L.
Good data, for me, is just about anywhere. The angle I'm lookng at your work from, is that the atomic structure or atoms that the diamond is made of, are directly in contact with the Ni-P strucutre, I would expect. The question for me, is the whole wear itself, and why it is reduced. First I have to understand the idea of the Ni-P as a material, on the molecular combination level and how it is deposited, exactly. Not just the method but the sheer physicality of it and the deposition. Then, I have to try to understand the high wear combinations in the same context. From between the two (including any agents used in the polishing) behaviours concerning diamond wear, perhaps I will learn something about molecular considerations... of something. I will read and maybe something interesting (to me) will rear it's head. If not, I will file that undertanding for future use. Ie, for me it's a 2-4 hour crash course in the subject, figuring out what I can. After doing exactly this sort of thing for many, many a year, my personal backlog or catalouge of odd facts and co-inkydinks in science and physics...is damned long. An incredible plethora of odd facts and anomolous data. All in my head. Sorry. I tried printing such things after I got a laser printer, to begin a record. I ended up filling two large binders in two days, so I stopped. My personal method works for me, why change it?
As a 'generalist'..shifting laterally through science, not linearly..It is expected that I will eventually come to an understanding that maybe linear, segmented and concentrated attacks on specific subjects may not get to....simply due to the singular viewpoint of their investigations.
Like the idea of a guy name Bob, deep into his investigations in the direct and linear sense..getting stuck..and taking lunch and speaking to Joe during the hour..and Joe solving his problem with an offhand comment about some of the crazy stuff he's been doing. Bob's answer came from outside his work. Ultimately it was inside the work...but the insight occured from outside.
This is an incredibly common occurance in science. Which is part of why I went that way. I could have went to school, finished my degree (1 credit shy) But I went this way instead. The road less travelled. Lotsa guys down that other road. Almost all of them, to a man.
The way I see it, the odds of coming up with unique and valuble work...are better over here. It's kinda dark, but I brought a flashlight.
As a 'generalist'..shifting laterally through science, not linearly..It is expected that I will eventually come to an understanding that maybe linear, segmented and concentrated attacks on specific subjects may not get to....simply due to the singular viewpoint of their investigations.
Like the idea of a guy name Bob, deep into his investigations in the direct and linear sense..getting stuck..and taking lunch and speaking to Joe during the hour..and Joe solving his problem with an offhand comment about some of the crazy stuff he's been doing. Bob's answer came from outside his work. Ultimately it was inside the work...but the insight occured from outside.
This is an incredibly common occurance in science. Which is part of why I went that way. I could have went to school, finished my degree (1 credit shy) But I went this way instead. The road less travelled. Lotsa guys down that other road. Almost all of them, to a man.
The way I see it, the odds of coming up with unique and valuble work...are better over here. It's kinda dark, but I brought a flashlight.
The google search parameters I used are 'magnetic inertia', for the heck of it.
The first Item I came arcoss, this evening, was the quote in the previous post on this subject. The fourth down, was from the same site.
All forces that act through a distance are attributed to cosmic radiation pressure and shadowing of these frequencies by matter. The shadowing causes a local unbalanced flow in the normally balanced radiation frequency flows of space. All matter exists as interference patterns in the Prime background radiation frequencies of space. A surface gravity and/or radiation pressure limit are shown to exist when the radiation flow is totally shielded by large planets. The cause for the inverse square laws of physics is shown to be a natural result of shadowing geometry with distance. Data and graphs are presented demonstrating the gravitational shadowing for our solar system planets.
A model of inertia is given where inertia is a result of unbalanced radiation absorption during acceleration. The unbalance is ascribed to a combination of the Doppler effect and the quantum nature of photons.
With a systems model for the cause of remote forces, various experiments to achieve artificial interaction become self-evident. A multitude of combinations of the electrostatic, magnetic and inertial forces may be tried, with the objective of shielding or focusing the radiation to modify the local effects of gravity and inertia upon an object.
This seems (seems!) to play into my hypohesis of the moment (hah!pun!), of polarization issues (oriented fields with gradation) which may be part of the issue with these so called free energy and over unity devices. This not being properly considered in the effects by some of their 'inventors'. Possibly why their bizzare (some or most of them) reported effects are not so repeatable or obvious. I'm not quite sure how to explain such at this moment, as I am obviously...still investigating.
This, concerning the sheer physical aspects of the solids utilized in these attempts or devices, against the sheer liquidity of the inertial forces surrounding them, that they are attempting work work with. This, against the idea of where gravity on this ball we call earth comes from, re the liquid rotating core and some of the gravitic devices of yore and legend, utilizing liquid slurries that are purely molecular in nature.
The behaviour of browns gas when acting on a solid, vs how it acts upon a liquid - also seems to play into this. I have a brown's gas generator, (electrical 'flame' as opposed to the known variety?) as stated, and have noticed this effect, and the brown's gas games played with by Sterling Allan on his site, also seem to fall right into this. Hutchinson's so called experiments also seem to have stumbled onto a similar effect.
This seems to correlate, possibly with quantum superstring issues or ideas, and with the book by the Indian gentleman I mentioned earlier in the thread ('two Universes Colliding'). The book I bothered to buy and am attempting to ingest.
The first Item I came arcoss, this evening, was the quote in the previous post on this subject. The fourth down, was from the same site.
All forces that act through a distance are attributed to cosmic radiation pressure and shadowing of these frequencies by matter. The shadowing causes a local unbalanced flow in the normally balanced radiation frequency flows of space. All matter exists as interference patterns in the Prime background radiation frequencies of space. A surface gravity and/or radiation pressure limit are shown to exist when the radiation flow is totally shielded by large planets. The cause for the inverse square laws of physics is shown to be a natural result of shadowing geometry with distance. Data and graphs are presented demonstrating the gravitational shadowing for our solar system planets.
A model of inertia is given where inertia is a result of unbalanced radiation absorption during acceleration. The unbalance is ascribed to a combination of the Doppler effect and the quantum nature of photons.
With a systems model for the cause of remote forces, various experiments to achieve artificial interaction become self-evident. A multitude of combinations of the electrostatic, magnetic and inertial forces may be tried, with the objective of shielding or focusing the radiation to modify the local effects of gravity and inertia upon an object.
This seems (seems!) to play into my hypohesis of the moment (hah!pun!), of polarization issues (oriented fields with gradation) which may be part of the issue with these so called free energy and over unity devices. This not being properly considered in the effects by some of their 'inventors'. Possibly why their bizzare (some or most of them) reported effects are not so repeatable or obvious. I'm not quite sure how to explain such at this moment, as I am obviously...still investigating.
This, concerning the sheer physical aspects of the solids utilized in these attempts or devices, against the sheer liquidity of the inertial forces surrounding them, that they are attempting work work with. This, against the idea of where gravity on this ball we call earth comes from, re the liquid rotating core and some of the gravitic devices of yore and legend, utilizing liquid slurries that are purely molecular in nature.
The behaviour of browns gas when acting on a solid, vs how it acts upon a liquid - also seems to play into this. I have a brown's gas generator, (electrical 'flame' as opposed to the known variety?) as stated, and have noticed this effect, and the brown's gas games played with by Sterling Allan on his site, also seem to fall right into this. Hutchinson's so called experiments also seem to have stumbled onto a similar effect.
This seems to correlate, possibly with quantum superstring issues or ideas, and with the book by the Indian gentleman I mentioned earlier in the thread ('two Universes Colliding'). The book I bothered to buy and am attempting to ingest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.