UFOSeek Forum

Community for discussion of UFO, Paranormal and mysterious topics
It is currently Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:32 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:26 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Good Laugh,

I take it you bought Tom's book and are less than happy with its contents.

I don't know if you realize it but you have not said a whole lot about new energy other than to laugh at Tom Bearden and call him names.

What about the energy of the aether, would that not be beneficial if we could tap into it.

Seeing as how the energy of the aether sustains all physical structure it would seem logical that we should be developing a method by which to tap the source rather than employ secondary processes to power our human industry.

You might think that to be a waste of time, but if successful it would certainly prove beneficial to everyone.

By the way, what is the real technology you refer to?

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 3:42 pm 
You really do not understand do you?
You seem to do nothing but follow Beardens gibberish without question.

No, I did not buy Beardens book. I do not pay for gibberish. I signed it out of a library.

I don't know if you realize it but you have not said a whole lot about new energy other than to blindly follow Beardens ravings.

What about energy from the aether? Are you saying you have a device that will tap into it?
Give me some quotes or book titles of sources of information on the aether that you are referring to so that we can be on the same page so to speak. If you are only referring to Beardens book, then spare me. I only want info that has been critically reviewed by the scientific community.
Then again, I would love to get more ammo to back up my cause.

Any real technology that solves the pending energy crisis is indeed beneficial.
We are in agreement there.

Examples of real, working, proven technology.
1. Solar panels. The most efficient one is only 41 percent but it does convert free sun light to electricity. Put more money toward that, make them more efficient and affordable.

2. Wind generators. Granted, wind is sporadic in some areas and you also have the "Not in my backyard" issue with some people. Those people will change their minds when they have to pay 100 dollars a gallon for gasoline.

3. Harnessing geothermal power. Google Geothermal Iceland. A quarter of Icelands electricity is produced by Geothermal technology.

4. Hydroelectric power generation. Should be well known to everyone.
Those are the main ones.

I look forward to receiving the book references.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:38 pm 
I would like to share some observations that I have made while frequenting the OU discussion groups.

The frequently mentioned videos on Youtube (and other sources) that "prove" there are working versions of OU devices. Quoting these sources as proof is comparable to saying a man can fly through the air based solely on Superman movies. OU technology must be subjected to the same peer review system that all of the scientific community has to submit to. This is how science is separated from pseudoscience.

The overwhelming feel of paranoia in the OU community. My previous posts are prime examples.
Talk about suppression of technology, assassination attempts, threats, etc.
Lets name some of the OU folks that are alive and well, still able to advertise their wares.

Dennis Lee. This guy has been conning people for ages, selling "Dealerships" . Not a single OU proving device sold on the market by this guy.

John Christie and Ludwig Brits. No device sold that will prove their OU claims. Again, their video claims that the device will produce enough energy to power a house off the grid. In the video, the generator is clearly not powering the room that it is in because the generator is initially off. Why buy power when you can make all you need? Good question. Google Video John Christie off the grid to see the video.

Steorn. These guys are intriguing. I am presently not certain what they are up to.
They openly claim OU by violation of physical laws. I must admit, this is a bold new approach in the OU scam community. And, they are claiming that they will allow the scientific community to scrutinize the technology. Yet again though, no OU proving demonstration to the scientific community to date. And Sean is still alive and well.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:04 pm 
I have read off and on about a new technology called "Paint on solar panels".
Google searching the above finds many sources.

Admittedly, I know very little about it. It sounds like a good idea, if it can be made workable and practical. It utilizes the free energy of the sun so, so far, I have not seen any OU claims. Again, time will prove whether it is true or not.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:17 pm 
There seems to be some misconceptions out there about Tesla's patent for a device that extracts energy from the environment. A lot of OU followers mention Tesla, but don't seem to understand what the patent is actually talking about.

The patent number is 685,957, Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy.
The bulk of the patent describes an early version of a transmitter receiver system.

Near the end of the patent, he explains how the receiver can tap into the electric potential that is always present between the atmosphere and ground. The higher you go into the atmosphere, the greater the voltage potential between that altitude and ground. Proven, measured, fact.

Unfortunately for Tesla, detailed knowledge about the atmosphere was limited in the early 1900's.
The theory is sound, the practical development is not.

The electric potential that exists between ground and any given altitude in the atmosphere is caused by the relative nonconductive characteristic of air. In other words, if air was a good conductor, any atmospheric static electric potential would immediately be grounded out.

So in order for static potential to build up in the atmosphere, air has to be relatively nonconductive. This nonconductive characteristic is, unfortunately, what also prevents all but a tiny current to flow from the receiver collector plate, into a capacitor, and to ground. The nonconductive nature of the air around the collection plate only allows for a tiny current flow, normally measured in microamps. Not enough for practical purposes.

The OU community has stories about inventors that have successfully tapped into the earths atmospheric electric potential and generated useful power levels. Again, no device presently available for purchase. No device presently being scrutinized by the scientific community.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:41 pm 
I was reviewing some of the earlier posts and I reread PWE's excellent explanation and examples of source and load interactions. David replied, what does this have to do with OU?

Answer. It has everything to do with understanding why OU is not feasible.

Let me attempt to build on PWE's explanation.

In reality, any load only draws what energy it needs from any given source or sources combined.
If the source forces excess energy into a load, the excess energy has to go somewhere.
The most common conversion of excess energy is into heat. When the heat energy exceeds the loads ability to dissipate it, the load begins to heat up excessively. At some point the load will experience some form of failure.

Now, lets look at over unity.
The concept of OU implies an efficiency of over 100 percent.
In other words, more energy is generated than is used by the load.
Already, the above concept is coming into play.

OU inventors, such as Bearden, claim that all energy comes from the vacuum.
Fine. Lets run with that.

A common electric generator consists of a gasoline engine converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. That in turn inputs mechanical energy into the input shaft of the generator to be converted into electrical energy.

Now, lets say that all the energy is coming from the vacuum.
The engine converts vacuum energy into mechanical energy.

In order to keep from burning up the load, source energy output (has to) = load demand + loses due to overall inefficiency. Overall inefficiency refers to both the source and the load. Can it be agreed upon that excess energy has to go somewhere? Or does it magically go back to the Vacuum? Or does the load magically expand to accept the increased energy input.

I will stop at this point and see what OU misery this generates.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:52 pm 
I think I finally realize why I am not getting through to the OU community.
The overwhelming lack of technical expertise in the community is the biggest part of the problem.

So lets break the OU concept down into manageable pieces.

1. There is always some device that gets extra energy from somewhere. Bearden claims Vacuum energy. Lets run with that concept.

2. This device needs a certain amount of energy to do the energy extraction process from "The Vacuum".

3. Since the device uses less energy than it can tap into from "The Vacuum", it can power a much bigger load. Hence, the OU claims. Small amount of energy to run the device, taps into the limitless energy of "The Vacuum", and quite frankly, should be able to power as big a load as you want. A house, a city, the entire planet. According to Bearden, Vacuum energy is limitless.

Those are the three main characteristics of OU devices and claims.

So, if this Vacuum energy is limitless, why not feed enough energy into the device from the Vacuum to make it self powered. If OU is possible, it invariably means the devices can be made to self power. A self powered device will theoretically run forever, or at least until it breaks down. The beauty of such a device is, that it would also prove itself to the world. Set up a demonstration. Place it in a room shielded from inductive energy sources and let the world see it run forever. This has yet to be done. Hundreds, if not thousands of claims, still no demonstration.

This is where the conspiracy theories and paranoia usually starts.

A lot of these inventors build their devices in their basements and garages so most of them are not big enough to power a house. Powering a single lightbulb for a month would impress me.

Some of these guys do claim that their device will power a house. John Christie and Lu Brits come to mind. They have yet to demonstrate this.

OU would be one of the simplest things to demonstrate and prove, yet, it never happens.

PostPosted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:03 pm 
Yo David, you still looking for book quotes?

I took the liberty to check out some of the other sections in this webpage.
You're quite the prolific writer, too bad it is mostly Bearden styled.
I can see why you subscribe to his gibberish.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:07 am 

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:59 am
Posts: 1853
Location: Canada
Good Laugh, you might at least show a bit of reserve and politeness on our forum. You might also consider that some of your remarks are sounding a wee bit slanderous, in relation to Tom Bearden. You seem to like labeling people insisting they suffer from a mental illness, when in fact I don't think you are qualified to make such a judgement.

You seem to have taken on a negative attitude towards new energy and the pursuit of over unity, plus a whole lot more. And as you may well know it is not at all easy attempting to prove a negative.

Am I wrong to assume you feel the same way about visitors coming to our planet from other parts of the universe? You might think other worldly visitors impossible too on the basis of what the scientific establishment has to say on the subject.

You talk about the atmosphere being non-conductive, which is a good thing for all of us, but build a conductive tower and see what happens...you just might have more power than you bargained for.

The vertical differential in electrical charge has been employed by numerous people for the last century and in some cases it has created some unwanted problems which resulted in a bit of expense to sufficiently ground radio transmission/receiver towers.

You can bash over unity all you want, but let me ask you about the linear approach to evaluating universe, which is one of my favorites.

Do you see the linear system providing an accurate assessment of universe, starting with the speed of light? In this respect light is thought to be in linear motion, much like a train or a bus, whereby it is assumed possible to measure the speed of light in meters per second.

I am interested to hear your take on this, so I would appreciate a response.

And incidentally I do not subscribe to Bearden's approach, I think I do quite well on my own.

I would assume you would be just as happy if the Chinese were the ones to back much of the new energy effort and take full advantage of the rewards. I know they have at least eight different electric cars in production at the moment and more to come. And if anyone is going to mass produce water cars it will probably be them rather than us.

And don't start on bashing the concept of the water car because that one is a slam dunk, its already been proven several times over.

And you talk about being impressed with a single light bulb staying on for a month, as per a magnetic motor keeping a 12 volt battery fully charged and lights on. But who is going to test this system.....no not the establishment because they all say; no we are not interested.

You have probably seen Charles Watson's magnetic setup, but no one wants to even look at it. Nonetheless he is going to scale it up himself, after he gets the magnets required made up in China.

A lot of fun we're having with all this new energy stuff, which you might consider. Fun that is, something that you would have fun doing.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2009 4:38 am 
PWE was absolutely right.
Good luck.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Powered by phpBB