Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

These groups will be irrelevant in a few months - Page 9

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Anthony Matonak on November 24, 2006, 6:41 am
 
Derek Broughton wrote:

There is the point that you can't prove a negative. It's up to
those making the claim to prove it and this has not yet been done.

That said, over thousands of years and uncounted inventors, not
one person has demonstrated a device that is contrary to the
currently accepted theories of physics. An over unity (or perpetual
motion) device is the closest thing to an impossibility as we've
got in our universe.

Anthony

Posted by Derek Broughton on November 24, 2006, 2:04 pm
 
Anthony Matonak wrote:


You don't need to prove a negative.  Use of the first & second laws of
Thermodynamics is sufficient to prove that it can't work without an energy
input from _somewhere_.

--
derek

Posted by News on November 23, 2006, 9:44 am
 

They have openly said they will not accept money.


I can't see one. Please point out where.


The only stupidity is what you write. No one has tested it and it is being
tested over the next 6 months.  We shall see. Your rambling, which is based
on the laws of physics, is just that.,.ramblings. The stupidity is anyone
who thinks that these man-made laws explain all about matter and sundry.
They may have tapped into something outside of current knowledge. The
history of these laws is one of being added to or amended as knowledge is
increased.


If it does what they say it does they get a patent.


I can't see the con.  Please point it out?  And don't babble about a con you
might "think" is there with no proof.  A panel of Scientists will verify the
claims. If they conclude it doesn't work then it disappears into thin air
and no one will offer money at all.


Please point it out. Assertion not proof.


They did. These have a panel of Scientists to prove it does or doesn't
before having a media splash. Ponds and Fleishman never.


All the Scientists ARE independent.  The calibre and who they are we will
get to know.


Never heard of him until this thread.


I'm open. I can't see a scam yet. Point to me where there is a clear scam
and I will be convinced.  If you imagine one then in your mind there is a
scam.  I'll wait until April.


Posted by Derek Broughton on November 23, 2006, 2:37 pm
 News wrote:


Do you get scammed often?  You're the sort of victim cons look for.  Cons
will _always_ tell you they don't want your money - right up to the point
where you're ripe for the picking.  Believing that they won't take your
money because _they_ tell you they won't is just making it easy.

Claiming an overunity device is _by definition_  one or the other.
Insisting that it can't be because they tell you it can't is terribly
naive.

No.  I'm trying to help you here, but you insist on being insulting.  On
your own head be it.


It's based on the LAWS of physics.  If you can't get that through your head,
there's no point in further argument, except:


Please cite _one_ instance where an accidental discovery led to a new source
of power.  It hasn't happened since fire - and one can argue that even
proto-humans were already aware of fire, just not what they could do with
it, or how to start it at will.


No, it doesn't.  It would require changing the law in the US and other
countries, because the patent laws now _specifically_ exclude perpetual
motion devices.


In the first place, how do you figure that?  They have already made the
media splash.  In the second, name one of these Scientists.  They "freely"
assert that every scientist (really, it doesn't need to be capitalized) who
has agreed they have something will only do it "off the record".  Extremely
suspicious.


<plonk>
--
derek

Posted by Marcus Red on November 26, 2006, 9:47 am
 News wrote:


April 1st would be my bet.

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread