The Mad Professor

One of the well known video file sharing sites is starting to get a collection of TV interviews up online , and the theory is still as clear as mud.

__________________
It may seem like a good idea at the time , but never stir your cold coffee with a soldering iron.

modernsteam

The above URL is functioning now.


Hal Ade

modernsteam

Oh, really?? THey've asked us Internet readers for money?? Funny, I didn't notice..

There's every reason, though, that they've asked for big bucks from big-moneyed people. Generally, those types aren't gullible, since they had to have smarts to make the money in the first place. Unless they've inherited all their stuff, big-moneyed people are very skeptical.They know to bring engineers with them to check for hidden cords, shafts, belts, batteries, fuel cells, and other external sources of energy input, and to ask lots and lots of questions. They often hand over only tiny amounts of funds in the beginning, to see what they inventors do with it, and oversee the work BIG TIME!!

Hal Ade

mramos1

I think they did hint they need funding WAY back when they first started all the marketing hype. I almost hate to respond giving them more press. But here, we are all cheap (or broke) engineers. No one will see it or donate.

If they have the answer, why has so much time gone by? The money they pay the armed guards at night to guard the machine could have brought it public a lot sooner.

Oznog

Interesting theory. Actually scammers (Tilley Electric Vehicle, etc) have historically found no shortage of foolish people with money willing to buy their explanations of why the design cannot be shown, explained, and demonstrated. And the faked reports of confirmation are not hard to come by either.

Now also take this into account. Look at what any good magician can do. They can make a coin appear, a matchstick dance on queue, and a hankerchief transform into a bird. That's far more difficult to do than to just fake a meter reading.

I have to ask myself why I would buy say the existance of quarks but not the Tilley Electric Vehicle. What makes a scam?

1. If it is not supported by accepted science, there's a problem.
2. If they won't give a detailed description of how it works, real big problem. Patents do protect your work.
3. Scammers always promise some remarkably useful principle that the common man will understand, and make people itch with "wow, you're just not exploiting it, this would change everything!"
The business world would not require your input or money. Anything truly useful you can patent, drive right over to Mercedes-Benz test track with your modified Mercedes engine and show it to them the extra 50% mpg or whatever. You're done. They spend millions to get an extra 1% out of an engine. The barriers to development they keep complaining about (disbelief, lack of development funds, ignorant engineers, etc) just don't exist. It's a hoax.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

tytower

There are a few guys around that might enjoy charging their mobile phone while they masturbate.Just strap it on the wrist. Reminds me of some problems they had with overwound watches

__________________
I Hate Microsoft-the site below says it well
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/micr...eMS_intro.html

Cabwood

Why can't it work? Because accepted science says it can't? Somebody give me a good, definitive reason why it can't work.

mramos1

Why have we not seen it work? Can somebody give me a good, definitive reason why we have not yet seen it work?

When did this topic start?

Nigel Goodwin

Do you believe in fairies as well?.

There have been ten's of thousands of similar scans over hundreds of years, if something works - then demonstrate it! - if they can't demonstrate it, then it's almost certainly just another scam!.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

Blueteeth

So, the two arguments are 'why does it work?' and 'why doesn't it work?'. Theres not much proof for the former, but the same could be said for the latter. I don't believe a question of whether its 'true' or not, because the definition of 'true' is subjective. It is simply whether it uses/causes an effect, unknown to modern science that is worth time and money investigating. I'm sure everyone could form an opinion on the matter.

I'll agree that sometimes people are far too dismissive of some idea's, that they do not even have any time for it, but for the most part, its completely justified. Constructive criticism seems to be rare though.

Sorry, just read that and it seems a bit pointless, so feel free to delete,

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

mramos1

I have an open mind. I stated I have built a few of the so-call free energy devices. Want a deal on some germanium diodes? 300 feet of wire and an
8 foot rod (only been in the ground once).

But like Nigel says.. This has went on for a LONG time and no one has ever showed one working, details or not.

So I until I see one, build one or buy one.. It does not exist to me (and others I am sure).

EDIT: Crabwood was making his point, sorry if I wasted anyones time making a counter-point.

I am still waiting to see the results from the experts and a video, plans, "working unit", unit for sale. It has been promised for sometime. If it works what is the delay?? No funding for a video camera maybe?

LOL: Fairies.. And Santa..

philba

perhaps some people don't understand the scientific method. Hypothesis-experiment-proof/disproof. in the court of science, ideas are presumed wrong until proven right. belief with out evidence belongs in the the court of faith, not science.

mramos1

Philba, well said..

"I" just asked for proof. And then "I" believe..

And "I" have faith. Show me it working and "I" believe..

Oznog

I could actually believe that it's possible for theoretical vacuum energy to be converted into electrical or kinetic energy, or you could "beat" the law of thermodynamics and freeze things while generating useful energy off of it.

The bottom line however is that the burden of proof in on the claimant. Making the same wild claims with no immediate proof- and only lame excuses why no proof has so far been demonstrated- is guaranteed bunk. Things that nobody else witnessed= bunk. Claims observed by "nobody" engineers/physicsts= bunk. Claims of things that COULD easily be demonstrated tomorrow but won't be because "it's still a secret", "oil companies will have us killed", "no real scientists will show up to observe our product"= bunk.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

Cabwood

Many big leaps in technology happen when somebody notices something that doesn't fit the currently accepted model of things. Initially people always say "that's rubbish, it's against the laws of physics" until someone proves why it isn't strictly against the laws of physics, or how the laws of physics can be bent without breaking. Then we all go "oooohhhhhh, I seeeeeeee. That's alright then."

I'd hate to think that a really useful and plausible idea falls by the wayside because of lack of support. I prefer to think that this idea is entirely possible, so I do. OK, so nobody (to my knowledge) has ever demonstrated an over-unity system. The Earth was apparently flat, once, and it was flat because nobody had ever demonstrated how it was round.

So here we are, waiting for someone to demonstrate. If they do, some will say "that's fantastic" and will develop the thing into something really useful. Others, that have been debunking, will say "ah, well, you see, it's not really over-unity because <insert technical scientific I was right see? excuse>"