Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by Mho on April 18, 2012, 4:36 am
Here is the same old twist of the promotion. Next comes about teaching the
children.
It's all about getting his name on something for his legacy.
---------------
"Energy-Ingenuity" wrote in message
I am not getting energy from nothing! I am telling and showing that
another part to the Magnet exists that is not a Pole! Sure it has
taken me a long time to get to this, but I show for FREE how I am
causing these reactions. Can you tell me the cause for the Poles
swaping on the Sun every 11 years? Can you demonstrate this
reaction? How much do you really know? I show cause and effect and
all you can say is, it is impossible for anything new to be found.
Posted by Energy-Ingenuity on April 16, 2012, 12:19 pm
> Understanding Scams like this one.
> There are two simple Energy Laws that govern the generation of energy,
> they are both laws of physics as we currently understand physics that
> can't broken without re-writing laws of physics that have withstood
> every challenge (like this scam) to their validity for decades.
> If an energy plan is not conforming to these laws there is something
> wrong either with the laws of physics (not likely) or the way that
> energy plan is being presented.
> Energy Laws: (Law of conservation of energy)
> 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form
> to another.
> 2) The conversion of energy from one form to another always consumes
> some of the energy from the source and the converted energy is always
> less the source.
> For example:
> Combustion engines (either internal or external) convert heat derived
> from fuel, to expand gases, to creating motion, and the energy of
> rotating engine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> fuel.
> Wind or water provides the motion for turbines, and the energy of
> rotating turbine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> wind or water driving it.
> Pretty simple and easy to understand and explain, so why doesn't
> Scam-Ingenuity give a simple and easy to understand and explanation?
> Magnets can't create energy (energy law 1), they can induce an
> electrical current, but ONLY when combined with motion, and it is the
> energy of the motion that is converted to electricity but always at
> energy output less than the input energy of the motion (energy law 2).
> You CAN'T end up with more output energy than input energy or you're
> creating energy, SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING which is IMPOSSIBLE without
> rewriting every physics book on the face of the planet.
> As far his claim the no one "can get a patent, claiming energy from
> Magnets, with out physical proof", here's his patent and it describes
> a simple alternator or generator and mentions nothing about
> Ward-Farce, an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's third law or law of
> conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zJTGAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq= ...
> Lenz's Law must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of
> Conservation of Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
> Newton's third lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_thi ...
> Law of conservation of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
> So, given these FACTS with absolute PROOF to back them, the only proof
> Scam-Ingenuity can offer is the answers to 5 simple questions:
> 1) Every physics book on the face of the planet say you can't create
> or destroy energy, just convert it from one from to another, and
> always at less than 100%. So, if it can't create energy, and it can't
> convert it a greater than 100%, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM???
> 2) Why, no references are made to this magical Ward Farce using any
> name or using any description or an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's
> third law or law of conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY in the
> patent???
> 3) Why aren't the energy companies "beating a path to his door" in the
> middle of an energy crisis, for this "better mouse-trap"???
> 4) Why aren't professors and teachers you "claim" to have demonstrated
> the invention to, screaming from the highest mountain that you solved
> the energy crisis???
> 5) Why do the laws of physics apply to every thing and every one on
> the planet, but your invention and you???
> So I will teach others what I have learned, for the good of our
> children and the future of mankind. This is a flat-out SCAM, by an all
> too well known scammer, who has absolutely NO proof (unlike the links
> in this post PROVING his scam), whose only goal is STEAL, ROB, AND
> CHEAT people out of their money.
> This is a serious ass hole.
> Curbie
Curbie,
The simple answer to these 5 questions is, THEY DID NOT DO, WHAT WE
ARE DOING. We are causing induction a different way than Lenz and
eveyone else has. After the current is taken, we are controlling a
force that everyone knows exists and showing how it is isolated from
the Poles. I am sorry you were not smart enough to find this by
yourself. Come see, test, build or something! Don't keep saying I
cannot do what I am doing, because this makes you look stupid!
Steve
Steve
Posted by harry k on April 16, 2012, 2:45 pm wrote:
> > Understanding Scams like this one.
> > There are two simple Energy Laws that govern the generation of energy,
> > they are both laws of physics as we currently understand physics that
> > can't broken without re-writing laws of physics that have withstood
> > every challenge (like this scam) to their validity for decades.
> > If an energy plan is not conforming to these laws there is something
> > wrong either with the laws of physics (not likely) or the way that
> > energy plan is being presented.
> > Energy Laws: (Law of conservation of energy)
> > 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form
> > to another.
> > 2) The conversion of energy from one form to another always consumes
> > some of the energy from the source and the converted energy is always
> > less the source.
> > For example:
> > Combustion engines (either internal or external) convert heat derived
> > from fuel, to expand gases, to creating motion, and the energy of
> > rotating engine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > fuel.
> > Wind or water provides the motion for turbines, and the energy of
> > rotating turbine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > wind or water driving it.
> > Pretty simple and easy to understand and explain, so why doesn't
> > Scam-Ingenuity give a simple and easy to understand and explanation?
> > Magnets can't create energy (energy law 1), they can induce an
> > electrical current, but ONLY when combined with motion, and it is the
> > energy of the motion that is converted to electricity but always at
> > energy output less than the input energy of the motion (energy law 2).
> > You CAN'T end up with more output energy than input energy or you're
> > creating energy, SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING which is IMPOSSIBLE without
> > rewriting every physics book on the face of the planet.
> > As far his claim the no one "can get a patent, claiming energy from
> > Magnets, with out physical proof", here's his patent and it describes
> > a simple alternator or generator and mentions nothing about
> > Ward-Farce, an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's third law or law of
> > conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zJTGAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq= ...
> > Lenz's Law must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of
> > Conservation of Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
> > Newton's third lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_thi ...
> > Law of conservation of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
> > So, given these FACTS with absolute PROOF to back them, the only proof
> > Scam-Ingenuity can offer is the answers to 5 simple questions:
> > 1) Every physics book on the face of the planet say you can't create
> > or destroy energy, just convert it from one from to another, and
> > always at less than 100%. So, if it can't create energy, and it can't
> > convert it a greater than 100%, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM???
> > 2) Why, no references are made to this magical Ward Farce using any
> > name or using any description or an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's
> > third law or law of conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY in the
> > patent???
> > 3) Why aren't the energy companies "beating a path to his door" in the
> > middle of an energy crisis, for this "better mouse-trap"???
> > 4) Why aren't professors and teachers you "claim" to have demonstrated
> > the invention to, screaming from the highest mountain that you solved
> > the energy crisis???
> > 5) Why do the laws of physics apply to every thing and every one on
> > the planet, but your invention and you???
> > So I will teach others what I have learned, for the good of our
> > children and the future of mankind. This is a flat-out SCAM, by an all
> > too well known scammer, who has absolutely NO proof (unlike the links
> > in this post PROVING his scam), whose only goal is STEAL, ROB, AND
> > CHEAT people out of their money.
> > This is a serious ass hole.
> > Curbie
> Curbie,
> The simple answer to these 5 questions is, THEY DID NOT DO, WHAT WE
> ARE DOING. We are causing induction a different way than Lenz and
> eveyone else has. After the current is taken, we are controlling a
> force that everyone knows exists and showing how it is isolated from
> the Poles. I am sorry you were not smart enough to find this by
> yourself. Come see, test, build or something! Don't keep saying I
> cannot do what I am doing, because this makes you look stupid!
> Steve
> Steve
So just when are you going to build such a simple device and present
it to real engineers for testing? No, not YOU demonstrate it, but
THEY actually get to hands-on test it.
You could have resolved this years ago but nooo...you just keep
hawking your impossible plans.
Harry K
Posted by Energy-Ingenuity on April 16, 2012, 9:48 pm
> wrote:
> > > Understanding Scams like this one.
> > > There are two simple Energy Laws that govern the generation of energy,
> > > they are both laws of physics as we currently understand physics that
> > > can't broken without re-writing laws of physics that have withstood
> > > every challenge (like this scam) to their validity for decades.
> > > If an energy plan is not conforming to these laws there is something
> > > wrong either with the laws of physics (not likely) or the way that
> > > energy plan is being presented.
> > > Energy Laws: (Law of conservation of energy)
> > > 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form
> > > to another.
> > > 2) The conversion of energy from one form to another always consumes
> > > some of the energy from the source and the converted energy is always
> > > less the source.
> > > For example:
> > > Combustion engines (either internal or external) convert heat derived
> > > from fuel, to expand gases, to creating motion, and the energy of
> > > rotating engine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > > fuel.
> > > Wind or water provides the motion for turbines, and the energy of
> > > rotating turbine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > > wind or water driving it.
> > > Pretty simple and easy to understand and explain, so why doesn't
> > > Scam-Ingenuity give a simple and easy to understand and explanation?
> > > Magnets can't create energy (energy law 1), they can induce an
> > > electrical current, but ONLY when combined with motion, and it is the
> > > energy of the motion that is converted to electricity but always at
> > > energy output less than the input energy of the motion (energy law 2).
> > > You CAN'T end up with more output energy than input energy or you're
> > > creating energy, SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING which is IMPOSSIBLE without
> > > rewriting every physics book on the face of the planet.
> > > As far his claim the no one "can get a patent, claiming energy from
> > > Magnets, with out physical proof", here's his patent and it describes
> > > a simple alternator or generator and mentions nothing about
> > > Ward-Farce, an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's third law or law of
> > > conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zJTGAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq= ...
> > > Lenz's Law must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of
> > > Conservation of Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
> > > Newton's third lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_thi ...
> > > Law of conservation of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
> > > So, given these FACTS with absolute PROOF to back them, the only proof
> > > Scam-Ingenuity can offer is the answers to 5 simple questions:
> > > 1) Every physics book on the face of the planet say you can't create
> > > or destroy energy, just convert it from one from to another, and
> > > always at less than 100%. So, if it can't create energy, and it can't
> > > convert it a greater than 100%, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM???
> > > 2) Why, no references are made to this magical Ward Farce using any
> > > name or using any description or an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's
> > > third law or law of conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY in the
> > > patent???
> > > 3) Why aren't the energy companies "beating a path to his door" in the
> > > middle of an energy crisis, for this "better mouse-trap"???
> > > 4) Why aren't professors and teachers you "claim" to have demonstrated
> > > the invention to, screaming from the highest mountain that you solved
> > > the energy crisis???
> > > 5) Why do the laws of physics apply to every thing and every one on
> > > the planet, but your invention and you???
> > > So I will teach others what I have learned, for the good of our
> > > children and the future of mankind. This is a flat-out SCAM, by an all
> > > too well known scammer, who has absolutely NO proof (unlike the links
> > > in this post PROVING his scam), whose only goal is STEAL, ROB, AND
> > > CHEAT people out of their money.
> > > This is a serious ass hole.
> > > Curbie
> > Curbie,
> > The simple answer to these 5 questions is, THEY DID NOT DO, WHAT WE
> > ARE DOING. We are causing induction a different way than Lenz and
> > eveyone else has. After the current is taken, we are controlling a
> > force that everyone knows exists and showing how it is isolated from
> > the Poles. I am sorry you were not smart enough to find this by
> > yourself. Come see, test, build or something! Don't keep saying I
> > cannot do what I am doing, because this makes you look stupid!
> > Steve
> > Steve
> So just when are you going to build such a simple device and present
> it to real engineers for testing? No, not YOU demonstrate it, but
> THEY actually get to hands-on test it.
> You could have resolved this years ago but nooo...you just keep
> hawking your impossible plans.
> Harry K
Harry,
Please come here and test. The devices are built! When will you be
here? You will see my claims.
www.energy-ingenuity.com
Steve
Posted by harry k on April 17, 2012, 1:33 pm wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > > Understanding Scams like this one.
> > > > There are two simple Energy Laws that govern the generation of energy,
> > > > they are both laws of physics as we currently understand physics that
> > > > can't broken without re-writing laws of physics that have withstood
> > > > every challenge (like this scam) to their validity for decades.
> > > > If an energy plan is not conforming to these laws there is something
> > > > wrong either with the laws of physics (not likely) or the way that
> > > > energy plan is being presented.
> > > > Energy Laws: (Law of conservation of energy)
> > > > 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form
> > > > to another.
> > > > 2) The conversion of energy from one form to another always consumes
> > > > some of the energy from the source and the converted energy is always
> > > > less the source.
> > > > For example:
> > > > Combustion engines (either internal or external) convert heat derived
> > > > from fuel, to expand gases, to creating motion, and the energy of
> > > > rotating engine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > > > fuel.
> > > > Wind or water provides the motion for turbines, and the energy of
> > > > rotating turbine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> > > > wind or water driving it.
> > > > Pretty simple and easy to understand and explain, so why doesn't
> > > > Scam-Ingenuity give a simple and easy to understand and explanation?
> > > > Magnets can't create energy (energy law 1), they can induce an
> > > > electrical current, but ONLY when combined with motion, and it is the
> > > > energy of the motion that is converted to electricity but always at
> > > > energy output less than the input energy of the motion (energy law 2).
> > > > You CAN'T end up with more output energy than input energy or you're
> > > > creating energy, SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING which is IMPOSSIBLE without
> > > > rewriting every physics book on the face of the planet.
> > > > As far his claim the no one "can get a patent, claiming energy from
> > > > Magnets, with out physical proof", here's his patent and it describes
> > > > a simple alternator or generator and mentions nothing about
> > > > Ward-Farce, an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's third law or law of
> > > > conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zJTGAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq= ...
> > > > Lenz's Law must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of
> > > > Conservation of Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
> > > > Newton's third lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_thi ...
> > > > Law of conservation of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
> > > > So, given these FACTS with absolute PROOF to back them, the only proof
> > > > Scam-Ingenuity can offer is the answers to 5 simple questions:
> > > > 1) Every physics book on the face of the planet say you can't create
> > > > or destroy energy, just convert it from one from to another, and
> > > > always at less than 100%. So, if it can't create energy, and it can't
> > > > convert it a greater than 100%, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM???
> > > > 2) Why, no references are made to this magical Ward Farce using any
> > > > name or using any description or an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's
> > > > third law or law of conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY in the
> > > > patent???
> > > > 3) Why aren't the energy companies "beating a path to his door" in the
> > > > middle of an energy crisis, for this "better mouse-trap"???
> > > > 4) Why aren't professors and teachers you "claim" to have demonstrated
> > > > the invention to, screaming from the highest mountain that you solved
> > > > the energy crisis???
> > > > 5) Why do the laws of physics apply to every thing and every one on
> > > > the planet, but your invention and you???
> > > > So I will teach others what I have learned, for the good of our
> > > > children and the future of mankind. This is a flat-out SCAM, by an all
> > > > too well known scammer, who has absolutely NO proof (unlike the links
> > > > in this post PROVING his scam), whose only goal is STEAL, ROB, AND
> > > > CHEAT people out of their money.
> > > > This is a serious ass hole.
> > > > Curbie
> > > Curbie,
> > > The simple answer to these 5 questions is, THEY DID NOT DO, WHAT WE
> > > ARE DOING. We are causing induction a different way than Lenz and
> > > eveyone else has. After the current is taken, we are controlling a
> > > force that everyone knows exists and showing how it is isolated from
> > > the Poles. I am sorry you were not smart enough to find this by
> > > yourself. Come see, test, build or something! Don't keep saying I
> > > cannot do what I am doing, because this makes you look stupid!
> > > Steve
> > > Steve
> > So just when are you going to build such a simple device and present
> > it to real engineers for testing? No, not YOU demonstrate it, but
> > THEY actually get to hands-on test it.
> > You could have resolved this years ago but nooo...you just keep
> > hawking your impossible plans.
> > Harry K
> Harry,
> Please come here and test. The devices are built! When will you be
> here? You will see my claims.www.energy-ingenuity.com
> Steve
I don't cross the sstreet to see what is impossible. Give your fake
devices to saome eal engineers to be tested OFF-SITE and without you
babbling in their ears. Let them publish the result.
Harry K
This Thread
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Related Posts
Latest Posts
|
XML site map
> There are two simple Energy Laws that govern the generation of energy,
> they are both laws of physics as we currently understand physics that
> can't broken without re-writing laws of physics that have withstood
> every challenge (like this scam) to their validity for decades.
> If an energy plan is not conforming to these laws there is something
> wrong either with the laws of physics (not likely) or the way that
> energy plan is being presented.
> Energy Laws: (Law of conservation of energy)
> 1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form
> to another.
> 2) The conversion of energy from one form to another always consumes
> some of the energy from the source and the converted energy is always
> less the source.
> For example:
> Combustion engines (either internal or external) convert heat derived
> from fuel, to expand gases, to creating motion, and the energy of
> rotating engine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> fuel.
> Wind or water provides the motion for turbines, and the energy of
> rotating turbine shaft is always less than the source energy of the
> wind or water driving it.
> Pretty simple and easy to understand and explain, so why doesn't
> Scam-Ingenuity give a simple and easy to understand and explanation?
> Magnets can't create energy (energy law 1), they can induce an
> electrical current, but ONLY when combined with motion, and it is the
> energy of the motion that is converted to electricity but always at
> energy output less than the input energy of the motion (energy law 2).
> You CAN'T end up with more output energy than input energy or you're
> creating energy, SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING which is IMPOSSIBLE without
> rewriting every physics book on the face of the planet.
> As far his claim the no one "can get a patent, claiming energy from
> Magnets, with out physical proof", here's his patent and it describes
> a simple alternator or generator and mentions nothing about
> Ward-Farce, an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's third law or law of
> conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zJTGAAAAEBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq= ...
> Lenz's Law must always obey Newton's third law and The Law of
> Conservation of Energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law
> Newton's third lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion#Newton.27s_thi ...
> Law of conservation of energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
> So, given these FACTS with absolute PROOF to back them, the only proof
> Scam-Ingenuity can offer is the answers to 5 simple questions:
> 1) Every physics book on the face of the planet say you can't create
> or destroy energy, just convert it from one from to another, and
> always at less than 100%. So, if it can't create energy, and it can't
> convert it a greater than 100%, WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM???
> 2) Why, no references are made to this magical Ward Farce using any
> name or using any description or an error with Lenz's Law or Newton's
> third law or law of conservation of energy, OR FREE ENERGY in the
> patent???
> 3) Why aren't the energy companies "beating a path to his door" in the
> middle of an energy crisis, for this "better mouse-trap"???
> 4) Why aren't professors and teachers you "claim" to have demonstrated
> the invention to, screaming from the highest mountain that you solved
> the energy crisis???
> 5) Why do the laws of physics apply to every thing and every one on
> the planet, but your invention and you???
> So I will teach others what I have learned, for the good of our
> children and the future of mankind. This is a flat-out SCAM, by an all
> too well known scammer, who has absolutely NO proof (unlike the links
> in this post PROVING his scam), whose only goal is STEAL, ROB, AND
> CHEAT people out of their money.
> This is a serious ass hole.
> Curbie