over-unity devices

What is it with you guys?

I submitted my post to you in response to your apparent interest in advances in new concepts of electrical engineering.

All you seem to have done in reply is to vilify me, as if I was the inventor of the aforementioned over unity device.

You are all shooting the messenger.

I have followed with interest the development of this device by these two inventors for quite some time.

Would not have any of you done so, had you known about it?

I get the feeling that some of you in this forum are very nervous about any thing to do with concepts that threaten the validity and permanency of the present laws of physics.

Just because the theory of the conservation of energy has been fractured, is no reason to get angry and vindictive?

Should some of our treasured laws of physics be found to be wanting, as a result of invention and discovery, then so be it.

For example …How do you explain telekinesis, using the present laws of physics?

And please, don't tell me it is impossible, because I have successfully demonstrated Telikinisius to an audience. Telikinisius is a natural phenomenon.

Scepticism is the enemy of discovery and innovation.

Your reference to the subject of children versus adults………well all I can say is that perhaps my fiend you need a little extra growing up to do your self.

WARO

WARO,

You're back. Welcome! And thank you for the compliment "my fiend"

But anyway, I meant you no disrespect when I posted about andragogy. I was only trying to say that an adult learner (like me, for example) is incapable of learning anything which does not somehow fit into the general body of knowledge I already think to be true. That's not a hurdle that I created just to make your life difficult; that's the way most adult humans are wired. Children usually do not have the full set of wiring yet and can learn things at odds with other facts.

I am not defending the law of conservation of energy. I certainly hope I didn't write anything to make you think that - sometimes I'm tired as I write and I make fuzzy-brained mistakes.

I am rising to the defense of causality. That, I believe, is the barrier to your over-unity machines. Can you explain how you get around that? Did you read the question I asked editorgbanalysts to ask you?

Actually, skepticism is the mother of discovery and innovation. Most of us who have successfully invented new gadgets have done so by being skeptical about the status quo. We never stop asking "Is that the best way to do this? How can I improve this? What use is that feature? Can I make this cheaper? Stronger?"

I don't know of anything in physics that says telekinesis is impossible. Why do you think that to be the case? Do you bend keys? Or lift objects into the air? Do you have video?

TVP45

Thank you for your reply,

I'm very grateful that you did not dismiss the phenomena of telekinesis,

To experience, is the first step to learning to understand.

However, believing or rather to expect others to believe...That's the problem.

I get a bit touchy when people dismiss out of hand things that Ì have experienced, and know to be true.

I confess that I was not clear in ensuring you that my reference to "conservation of energy" was not directed to you personally, but rather those who have never bothered to think carefully about these laws, or perhaps to challenge them.

The Laws of nature are the only laws that offer any permanency.

My hope for every one in the near future, is that they will be using electrical power generated by devices similar to those generators demonstrated by those two much devalued inventors from Queensland.

You mentioned spoon bending; no I have not been successful so far in achieving this natural phenomena.

however I did attended a demonstration of spoon bending which was held in a lecture room at a University in Perth, and I witnessed along with just over 100 other people who attended, 15 of the audience who discovered that they had effortlessly bend hard brass spoons, some at right angles, others in a circle.

A university was the appropriate venue I thought.

These spoons were then put on display after the event.

WARO

Waro,

Personally I did not think you would come back to this thread again; and to tell you the truth I do not even know why you would come back.

However, would it not have been simpler and easier to state that you do not have access to the validation/performance data? Or to have simply given the information of the researchers to the forum for interested persons to undertake individual investigation?

I must admit though that I am baffled by your remarks regarding "Conservation of Energy" given that I offered that any concerns on that could be suspended with a description of design that is available for analysis. Ultimately our failure or inability to explain success of the energy extraction design would have forced us to rethink our accepted knowns including the "Conservation of Energy". However, you gave us nothing to force our rethinking; what then are we supposed to do?

By the way, why do you refer to yourself as "the messenger"? Did the researchers send you here to canvass for support/acceptance of their ideas? If not then how do you qualify yourself as messenger?

The reason why you came under heavy criticism is because you expected us all to believe, on your word alone, that these two so-called "scientists" have achieved over-unity power generation. Did you check out the video on the link I provided? If you have, did you think those plants are real just because you saw them on Youtube? Or did you think I am an asshole who's insulting your intelligence by telling you that something that is clearly impossible is real? If it's the latter, well, that's exactly what you did to us all by insisting that we're being narrow-minded by refusing to believe the over-unity achievement of those two simply because they showed it on Youtube.

Since you claim over-unity is real, please explain to us how it is achieved. By drawing on a hitherto unknown source of energy? If so, what is it, and how was this energy drawn in? How much energy is required to draw in this energy? Please provide us facts and figures, plus a schematic of the system so that peer review can be carried out. If you or whoever else claiming over-unity is real cannot or will not, don't expect anyone other than a crackpot to believe you.

As for telekinesis, you claim you have successfully demonstrated it before an audience. So has David Copperfield, who has also made the Statue of Liberty disappear, walked through the Great Wall of China, and levitated across the Grand Canyon. Are you saying that all these feats are real? Because David Copperfield himself admits that they're all faked. Moreover, again, you are expecting us to take your word for it that you have successfully demonstrated it to an audience without providing corroborative evidence from credible independent witnesses. Without such evidence, nobody will believe you. Finally, the human body, like all living things, generates energy as a result of its metabolic processes. If this energy can somehow be concentrated, focused, and then redirected, then there is absolutely nothing in the laws of Physics that says that it is impossible. On the other hand, over-unity devices violate the laws of thermodynamics, which states that energy transfer must occur in order for work to be done, and that energy can only travel from a higher potential to a lower one until an equilibrium point is achieved, when all work will stop unless energy is continuously supplied to maintain the transfer.

Can you pour a glass of water upwards from the lower glass into the upper glass without using a pump? If you say that is impossible, then you have just answered your own question why we all say over-unity devices are impossible, because that is exactly what over-unity power generation means; tranfering energy from a lower potential to a higher one.

Kindly prove us all wrong with facts and figures instead of criticizing us all without good reason.

A superb post.

We find gullibility in children charming and fun. Despite the popularity of "The Miracle on 42nd Street" we know that Santa Claus does not exist, yet we are willing to perpetuate the myth. Gullibility in adults, however, should not be reinforced, because adults, especially in a democracy, are expected to act responsibly, and uncritically offering support to frauds is irresponsible.

Those of us with training and experience in physics and engineering have a responsibility to point out the flaws in reasoning that perpetrators of scams and frauds employ to advance their deceptions. We have a responsibility to imagine ourselves promoting our own similar device (imagining that it worked) and to rehearse what we might say to demonstrate that it works. John Christie, in this video, is effectively advertising for investors, (and the announcer says there was great investor interest). Otherwise, he would not grant an interview, because if he really had this trillion dollar device, he would be getting it on the market, and not wasting time talking with mainstream media, giving out only hints as to how the device might work.

In promoting an "ordinary" business plan, one must overcome the objections of investors on mainly marketing issues: what is the real size of the market, how much can be captured, what is the competition, why can we do better than the competition, etc. In an invention like this (if it worked) all those issues can be set aside: there is no competition for anything like this because all other devices on the market work within the constraints of nature (i.e., in accordance with science). This device is capable of "generating 24 kilowatts of power a day" (which is nonsense -- perhaps they meant 24 kilowatt-hours of energy). The challenge in an invention like this is not to show that there is a market (because the market potential is glaringly obvious), but to show that the device has some likelihood of actually working.

If the inventor fails to offer anything that would indicate that the device actually works then he should reasonably be considered to be yet another fraud in a very large and long string of over-unity frauds. There has never been a successful over-unity device, and it is the responsibility of engineers and scientists to point out that fact to the unsuspecting public, and to (for example) people who visit CR4, but who are unacquainted with physics. To "help" these "inventors" of impossible machines to get their product on the market, or to "help" them deal with the patent office would be irresponsible, and would promote gullibility among adults rather than to promote learning.

Society will benefit far more from learning than from gullibility (which is more-or-less antithetical to learning), far more from science than from unfounded belief, and far more from engineers who say "There is nothing you've said that makes me think that this device will work." than from those who say "The conspiracy is this, none of the Universities in Australia are permitted to make any investigation into the device..."

Here we are, almost a decade after Christie and Brits started seeking funding for their "invention." Which of the following seems plausible? 1. The device does not work. 2. There is an Australian conspiracy against anything that could make phenomenal profits for the company that gains control of the device.

Is it a reasonable expectation that an energy company (like, for example, BP, which has invested heavily in solar and other technologies beyond oil) would be extremely interested in investing in such a device? What conspiracy would keep such powerful companies from gaining control of these technologies, and employing them to provide electrical power to us a low prices while making high profits?

"telekinesis"

OK, that explains everything, Peace, out.