Why we fail to replicate OU devices?

[Ufopolitics]

A Very Simple Torque Evidence...

Here's a really good example of what I am talking about:



You make a claim that it has more torque, and then you state that no one has tested the torque.

You cannot claim something if you don't have the evidence to support it!

Well, you obviously can (you just did), but no one should take that claim seriously, until there is evidence to support it. That is what I am talking about. Claims without support make for bad science.

Vela,

It does not take to be that "Talented"...to know which motor has more torque than Original..talking about a very small Radio Shack $3.95 Mini Motor...

Just get Two of Your Fingers...and try to stop its shaft by hand...hold as hard as you could...and your skin will smoke...but it will not stop...
While the other one...the original...you could stop it with the tip of your tongue...

Now...that is "Not A Scientific Proof"...right?...pleeeease!!

There are not, ready to go out and buy a small motor Torque Tool at any Hobbies Shop...not even for medium sized motors...and the professionals ones are beyond anyone's here budget...talking over the 5000.00 USD..just to satisfy the Curiosity of a bunch of Skeptics Platoon??!!

I have made Dyno's...and you need a full shop to build one...(At least to build the Support Frame) and no, it can not be done in any House Garage Toolbox...unless the guy has Air Compressors, Mig Welders...Steel Saws...Torch and more...then again...that ain't no Typical House Garage.



Regards


Ufopolitics

[dR-Green]

Vela,

It does not take to be that "Talented"...to know which motor has more torque than Original..talking about a very small Radio Shack $3.95 Mini Motor...

Just get Two of Your Fingers...and try to stop its shaft by hand...hold as hard as you could...and your skin will smoke...but it will not stop...
While the other one...the original...you could stop it with the tip of your tongue...

Now...that is "Not A Scientific Proof"...right?...pleeeease!!

Nope. You can't put a bigger engine in a small car and say "there, OU, see it pull a trailer the original cannot." You forgot the fact that the bigger engine is using more fuel. There's no science in this.

[Ufopolitics]

Hello Again dR Green...

Nope. You can't put a bigger engine in a small car and say "there, OU, see it pull a trailer the original cannot." You forgot the fact that the bigger engine is using more fuel. There's no science in this.

Hello dR Green,

Happy New Year!

Where are you pulling from that it is a "Bigger Engine"?!
it is built within same exact armature...
So...IF You want the Gas Engine example you have brought...then by all means...
It is NOT a bigger Engine...same exact Block, same Crankshaft...same number of pistons (poles)...I just installed a Twin Turbo Charger on it...I re use the exhaust fumes that are still crude, cool them off...and inject them by pressure of the Turbines into the Intake Manifold...

So, NOPE, it does not use more gas...it just reuses the reusable fumes the old engine exhales to our air...

And if you are talking about taking more amps...you are wrong like the rest...I can do a very simple video...and show you big differences between two big time different sizes Motors...

But I really do not care..."in time" I will show what I have to show...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[velacreations]

Nope. You can't put a bigger engine in a small car and say "there, OU, see it pull a trailer the original cannot." You forgot the fact that the bigger engine is using more fuel. There's no science in this.

EXACTLY!!!

Claims without data, without evidence are just claims.

You have to realize what it sounds like when someone says "my device is OU!!! You just have to trust me, it is faster, stronger, etc."

And then when we ask for evidence, the reply is often "you can't prove I'm wrong, therefore, I'm right"

I'm not just picking on you, Ufopolitics, it is a common theme in the OU/FE community. And don't take it personally, it is not a personal attack on you, it is a request for verification of your extraordinary claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

[dR-Green]

Happy new year to you too

In the analogy I gave the engine represents the motor windings, and the car's chassis/body represents the motor casing and what not.

I'm no mechanic but I know for sure a turbo uses more fuel, it's not free. Hence fast cars have very low MPG ratings.

I think better than videos would be a simple chart showing all the variables, a format that scientists use and understand and shows the whole story in one glance. "A picture tells a thousand words", whereas a video is sequential. A simple format with original motor voltage and current etc in one column and modified measurements in another.

[mbrownn]

do you have a link with replications/descriptions, etc?

Yes but you found one already http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=2003 the other is Imhotep's Lab Interactive FAQ - Index page

The only real way to prove it to yourself, is to build and test one, I have never seen a research lab do that despite thousands of requests. Its a mini Bedini SSG

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

No, Extraordinary claims require evidence to support them but there in no requirement that the evidence be extraordinary in any way, evidence is evidence --period.

Then there is the silly notion that a lack of evidence must mean something cannot be true. Well no that is absurd because what you are really saying is it cannot be true because you personally have no understanding of it. If this is the case then anything you personally cannot understand must not exist or cannot be true, I hope you can appreciate how completely absurd this line of reasoning is.

I mean no offense but generally this flawed line of reasoning is used by people who have no real understanding of science nor what it stands for.
let me enlighten you, Science is the study of natural phenomena and when we have no proof of something one way or the other this means we do not fully understand it. It is not true or false and the data is inconclusive one way or the other --- we do not know.

I know many scientists and consider myself to be a scientific person and generally we refer to people making statements such as you have as an extremist and to be honest I do find your posts a bit fanatical.

Slow down, take a deep breath, the world is not coming to an end if some people exaggerate a bit to make a point.

AC

[mbrownn]

Vela,

I have made Dyno's...and you need a full shop to build one...(At least to build the Support Frame) and no, it can not be done in any House Garage Toolbox...unless the guy has Air Compressors, Mig Welders...Steel Saws...Torch and more...then again...that ain't no Typical House Garage.

Regards
Ufopolitics

Naaa all you need is a piece of wood, an accurate balance and something to measure the motor speed (I use my scope) This is the type I use http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Pro...ny%20Brake.PNG

instructions to make one are here Prony Brake

Its so simple my 7yo son can make one

[Ufopolitics]

Nice...

Naaa all you need is a piece of wood, an accurate balance and something to measure the motor speed (I use my scope) This is the type I use http://my.voyager.net/~jrrandall/Pro...ny%20Brake.PNG

instructions to make one are here Prony Brake

Its so simple my 7yo son can make one

Hello Mbrownn


That is a pretty one...Nice

But when we are talking about a large Motor...3/4 In shaft, with Key Hole... over 8 HP of Torque...No wood...will stand that friction...plus key holes will cut wood like a Chopper makes Mulch...

As a matter of fact I am making those tests right now...I have a steel pulley...a steel cable that holds over 370 pounds...I built steel rod and pulleys/hooks...two digital scales...and let me tell you...if I do not grease up a bit that cable...it will sand down to a hair...and still smokes grease a lot...and Pulley gets over 300º F...and I am "only"applying 36.0 Lb of pressure...and still RPM's are at 4200...I have to bring it down to over 90 lb...is cooling off now...while I write...

while Motor windings are not even warm...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[velacreations]

Then there is the silly notion that a lack of evidence must mean something cannot be true. Well no that is absurd because what you are really saying is it cannot be true because you personally have no understanding of it. If this is the case then anything you personally cannot understand must not exist or cannot be true, I hope you can appreciate how completely absurd this line of reasoning is.

That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying that a lack of evidence makes a claim UNPROVEN. It is neither true or untrue. It is just a claim. Like I said before, an unsupported claim should not be believed (as many here have requested), it should be treated as a simple statement of belief. And that's all someone can really say about it. They can say I BELIEVE I have something here, but I can't say I really do, because I have no evidence to support that claim.

If someone comes along and claims they have a OU device, do we take that claim at face value as the truth, without supporting evidence?

No true scientist would accept an unsupported claim as truth.

[mbrownn]

Hi velacreations

I don't know what this whole debate has been about, didn't anyone tell you about the fan?

All they had to do was show you that because it is scalable like this http://www.modvid.com/bedini/images/bedini_monopole.jpg or even bigger like this http://www.cheniere.org/images/peopl...ni/Image12.jpg They are even available in kit form to make the build easier like this http://projectavalon.net/Bill_Ryan_J...enerator_1.jpg

OK this does need batteries and noone has successfully looped one back to itself as far as I know but they do work.

Now go on, build a fan and test it, you know you want to.

The instructions are here Imhoteps Labs select Imhotep-Bedini-SSG

To show the overunity you will need two cheap lead acid batteries, in good condition, whose amp hour rating is around 10 to 20 times the amp drain of the fan. The hardest part is measuring the mechanical power of the fan as it is so small.

You will get a charging efficiency in excess of 90%

The mechanical efficiency is around 20 to 40%

If you don't get these results just ask any of us for help, I think most could help you get there.

If you add generator coils to the fan, this is difficult because it is so small, their output will be about half the mechanical power giving a total electrical output of 100 to 120%. My tests showed that combining the outputs was inconclusive but if they go to two separate batteries the efficiency was more evident.

It is not a good idea to loop it back to the supply as batteries do not like to be charged and discharged at the same time, It shortens their life and the pulse output of the fan would short on the source.

This is a proof of concept type of device and not practical to run your house, but once you understand that there must be an input from another source, ie an open system then that leaves lots of other possibilities for building open systems. This explanation is the only thing mainstream science has had to say on it but will not, as far as I know, confirm the results. No conspiracy, its just they haven't tested it.

The conspiracy theory is why haven't they tested it?

Good luck with your build, I hope you get it right first time

[Allcanadian]

@velacreations

That is not what I am saying at all. What I am saying that a lack of evidence makes a claim UNPROVEN. It is neither true or untrue. It is just a claim. Like I said before, an unsupported claim should not be believed (as many here have requested), it should be treated as a simple statement of belief. And that's all someone can really say about it. They can say I BELIEVE I have something here, but I can't say I really do, because I have no evidence to support that claim.

I would agree however you keep making contradictory statements, ie.."an unsupported claim should not be believed". Well no this is not true as a hypothesis is essentially a statement of belief. We can believe whatever we want however that cannot change the facts nor the truth of a matter so yes I can believe an unsupported claim but that does not make it any more true nor false.

If someone comes along and claims they have a OU device, do we take that claim at face value as the truth, without supporting evidence?

No, however as we lack evidence either way how can we determine whether it is the truth or not?. To say it is not the truth is false because we do not know, to say we should not believe is false because we do not know either way, the only truth is we do not know.

No true scientist would accept an unsupported claim as truth.

PLOS ONE: How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

Archived-Articles: Why Scientists Lie -- and What to Do about It

Climate Scientist Admits To Lying, Leaking Documents : NPR

To Err is human
AC

[Ein~+ein]

Do we agree with the premise that no one's successfully replicated OU?

Isn't it a question of what successful replication is? Farmhand, for one, takes issue with they way OU is measured. Add to that a more detailed description of parts, assembly, and operation and I'd be more inclined to accept such claims.

[velacreations]

Hi velacreations

I don't know what this whole debate has been about, didn't anyone tell you about the fan?

All they had to do was show you that because it is scalable like this http://www.modvid.com/bedini/images/bedini_monopole.jpg or even bigger like this http://www.cheniere.org/images/peopl...ni/Image12.jpg They are even available in kit form to make the build easier like this http://projectavalon.net/Bill_Ryan_J...enerator_1.jpg

OK this does need batteries and noone has successfully looped one back to itself as far as I know but they do work.

Now go on, build a fan and test it, you know you want to.

The instructions are here Imhoteps Labs select Imhotep-Bedini-SSG

To show the overunity you will need two cheap lead acid batteries, in good condition, whose amp hour rating is around 10 to 20 times the amp drain of the fan. The hardest part is measuring the mechanical power of the fan as it is so small.

You will get a charging efficiency in excess of 90%

The mechanical efficiency is around 20 to 40%

If you don't get these results just ask any of us for help, I think most could help you get there.

If you add generator coils to the fan, this is difficult because it is so small, their output will be about half the mechanical power giving a total electrical output of 100 to 120%. My tests showed that combining the outputs was inconclusive but if they go to two separate batteries the efficiency was more evident.

It is not a good idea to loop it back to the supply as batteries do not like to be charged and discharged at the same time, It shortens their life and the pulse output of the fan would short on the source.

This is a proof of concept type of device and not practical to run your house, but once you understand that there must be an input from another source, ie an open system then that leaves lots of other possibilities for building open systems. This explanation is the only thing mainstream science has had to say on it but will not, as far as I know, confirm the results. No conspiracy, its just they haven't tested it.

The conspiracy theory is why haven't they tested it?

Good luck with your build, I hope you get it right first time

Thanks, mbrowwn! I will definitely look at it. I would appreciate you giving us details of your tests and replications over on my thread, just so it is easy to follow: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...g-works-3.html

[velacreations]

I would agree however you keep making contradictory statements, ie.."an unsupported claim should not be believed". Well no this is not true as a hypothesis is essentially a statement of belief. We can believe whatever we want however that cannot change the facts nor the truth of a matter so yes I can believe an unsupported claim but that does not make it any more true nor false.

Right, you can believe whatever you want, but no amount of belief makes something true. To position something as the truth when no evidence has been provided is a great disservice, and relating to this thread, it is one of the reasons why so many replications fail. They are following beliefs and treating them as fact.

No, however as we lack evidence either way how can we determine whether it is the truth or not?. To say it is not the truth is false because we do not know, to say we should not believe is false because we do not know either way, the only truth is we do not know.

each claim is different, but in many cases, we do have evidence that contradicts the claim. So believing in such a claim would not be good science, as there exists evidence to the contrary and no evidence to support.

This is where the conspiracy comes in, as they will say the contradictory evidence is an effort to coverup the concept.

In a case where there is no evidence to the contrary, we can only take the claim as a belief, and nothing more. But that is not what is being done in many of these cases, these claims are being presented as truth by default.

The other side of this is that skeptics or criticisms of methods or measurements are attacked, rather than considered. Time and time again, even on this forum, "nonbelievers" are ridiculed for suggesting that evidence should accompany an extraordinary claim. That is bad science, and helps to propel the illusion that the original claim has validity, even without supporting evidence.