Another claim to a working device...

[Reticon]

Ed, I've done a lot with image manipulation, and I testify with high certainty, both pictures were taken with no person in the crane. The later addition is a very bad one, and let's hope that they continue to be bad at it if they intend to manipulate further. I'm actually very good at it and have fooled myself after the fact.

What intrigues me is why? The rest of the image looks pretty good, especially given the two angles. There's some odd coloring around the joints of the newly added structures that could be a result of fading in a pasted image, but given the two angles I have to assume that is just resolution. I looked through the prior images and besides the apparent staging of the workers, which is typical of most promotional materials, if they were pasted in those were done much better. I don't think they are superimposed.

So back to why? Especially why do such a bad job? I discern that whoever is managing these images is obsessive about communicating a specific message. So obsessive that they tipped their hand. If this project were about building a machine that they already know will work, then nobody looking at the later pictures and think: "OMG! There aren't any people, we need them to think this is in process!" ... Yet this guy thought something very similar to that, and decided to do a hack job on the most recent images.

Given that I'm more skeptical than ever, the priority of the person that hacked those last two photos is to create an impression. Extrapolate that to the entire project, and voilà, it's a show. Albeit an impressive one.

[rlortie]

I too noticed that the picture looked somewhat ghostly, especially the back crane and end wall of the building.

Using Ctrl + I blew the image up to maximum, cannot find any objective faults other than to say it plain flat does not look right! Even the Mortar lines in the brick wall look peculiar as well as the crane.

Ralph

[Reticon]

Ralph, because of how digital images get compressed, diagonal lines can be the most distorted by normal processes. The most objective fault I see is that his head in the far shot looks to be roughly 50% larger than the head in the closer picture. Hence my statement that it was done poorly.

[Grimer]

Hi !
The game with the articulated mechanisms is a very old one , and has a lot of various ,sometimes unexpected applications...:

www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=sLOVdo_Qu3E&feature=fvwp

.....but we must recognize that ," Rarenergia.com" are on a new "path".

Let wish them success!

Al_ex

Indeed.

In view of the fact that they have written to both Ralph and John it shows they have been thinking along the same lines as the forum.

If any of us had the money at our disposal they obviously have, one of us might have succeeded by now.

They must have read John's book and come to believe that Bessler's claim was genuine.

Belief things are possible is half the battle in moving mountains.

Frank

[iacob alex]

Hi Grimer !

Continuous motion (perpetuum mobile...) is an universal , common idea .

With a flow/fall , a beach/fulcrum and an "artifice"/machine (playing unbalance "on the spot") we can have access to this "fresh" motion.

All that we need is to go back to nature (as usually...) for information...

So ,we can "copy" the natural motion of the celestial systems ,or living creatures (as Theo Jansen...) , let's say one of them (articulated mechanisms) , at :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z6RrUpTHKo

...adding (let's hope!) that of rarenergia.com.br

They can open a new vision ("path") about self running mechanisms : the huge amount of possible variety ,if we develop gradually the "generous" representation of lever/leverage.

Al_ex

[Ed]

Do you work for YouTube or something?

[Reticon]

Haha, another like Ed. ;-)

[Reticon]

░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████
░░██▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░░░███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███
░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░░░░███▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███
░░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░░░░█▒▒▒▒▒█░░░██▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░░░░░█▒▒▒█░░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒█♥██▒▒▒▒█♥██▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░░░█████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░░░█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒██
██▒▒▒███████████▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒▒██
█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██
██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██
░█▒▒▒███████████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██████▒▒▒▒▒██
░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒███▒▒▒▒▒▒██████▒▒▒██
░░░████████████░░░███████████████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░██████░░

[Furcurequs]

Remember that guy in France with the giant thing that looked like a Ferris wheel? Big and ambitious is really no more telling than the written frustrations we get to see here everyday. Just a different type of outlet for delusional behavior. They probably sincerely believe that they just need it to be bigger and stronger and then it will magically and actually work! The buzz saw was intriguing for the same reason. Why would someone go through all of the trouble to produce that without a working model? Exactly the same reason that people spend hours typing long and irrational "proofs" of their own concepts. The same reason Harold Camping predicted the end of the world wrongly, TWICE! It's even the same dynamic that causes mass murderers to go on killing sprees. A momentary feeling of power and importance.

Since I'm all too fascinated with delusions, having experienced my own share, let me warn you that if you are in a panic because you believe these guys are going to "beat you to it" by a matter of days or even minutes, take a deep breath, or maybe even take a vacation. Do something fun for the next year or two and it's most likely that these guys will still be "optimizing", "tweaking", or "enhancing" this behemoth. Then, maybe, once you've been deceived for the hundredth time you might realize that Bessler may have just been another one of these people. Does even that mean that this could never be done? Unfortunately no. Hence my continued fantasies.

Hey Reticon,

I certainly understand what you are saying, and I had even already thought about that big Ferris wheel like device of Aldo Costa's (I believe the name is), too, when pondering the size of this thing. I readily admit that neither big devices nor big public claims are any sort of guarantee that something is actually going to work.

I also remember that Irish company Steorn who, maybe not too unlike these foks, took out a full page advertisement in The Economist magazine some years ago claiming they had a free energy device that had already been proven to work by scientists and engineers - but had been "proven" behind closed doors, of course. They then went on to develop a near cult-like following of believers even though they never actually demonstrated a verifiably working device.

...and then there was Joseph Newman who first claimed to have a free energy device around the time I was in college or maybe a little before who was on television and in the news and written up in science magazines - and yet he could never seem to produce a convincing demonstration, either, since those batteries were always connected.

These cases did seem to me to be a matter of delusional inventors gone public rather than outright and intentional fraud.

I've always tried to be honest with myself and others, and so the thought of making a claim that cannot (or couldn't) be truly substantiated seems rather foreign to me, and yet I must admit that I've now been around long enough to see that what seems foreign to me may be rather close to home to others.

As a slight sidetrack, I've read that highly intelligent and introspective people can tend to be rather indecisive and unsure of themselves when having to make a choice in a given situation - for they can think of many possible scenarios, outcomes and pitfalls in regards to the choices they make, of course. ...and yet people seem to like "decisiveness" in their leaders - which can be rather unfortunate since the most decisive of people may tend to be the ones who make their decisions based upon whims, gut feelings and mere opinions.

So, this world seems to have a history of bold and decisive "leaders" doing lots and lots of misleading - not letting the truth or doing what's right or good get in the way of their own delusions of grandeur, I suppose.

Anyway, when there's such a long history of false claims by the deluded and the outright lies by the hoaxers, fauds and conmen, we certainly do have to "test the spirit" (so to speak) of those who would make new claims.

With that said, if what we are investigating here in regards to Bessler's device actually is possible, though, these people MIGHT actually have a variation of it that's just not yet been publicly confirmed. ...just as I MIGHT have a variation of it that I've not yet confirmed even to myself.

Good science is all about making observations, coming up with speculative hypotheses based upon those observations and then testing those hypotheses against reality, though.

So, what if a written proof were as good as a written proof could be - but it was just not yet actually tested against reality with the proper experiment? Would you subject your hypothesis to a peer review before you had actually done the experiment or would you wait until afterwards so that you actually had some data and results to show, too, that could perhaps even back it up?

Is the written proof stage like the proposal and grant seeking stage in mainstream science? Should one present the written proof to get funding? ...or to get attention? How about to get cheerleaders?

Wait, hmmm... ...maybe hot cheerleaders and groupies?

Mainstream scientists have spent years and billions of dollars preparing to do some of their tests at the Large Hadron Collider based upon, I guess you could say, a motivation to validate "written proofs".

I've spent years and TENS of dollars preparing to do my experiments! ...and I'll write up the proof later, I guess. ...hopefully.

I think it sounds so much nicer to say "I have a speculative hypothesis based upon some of my own observations which I've just not yet confirmed experimentally yet - but I am somewhat excited about it because the observations on which I'm basing my hypothesis seem to be described already by known and accepted laws of physics" than "I'm delusional".

I'll make another hypothesis: I'll know whether my own hypotheses are correct before the advocates of the existance of muliple universes or string theory will with theirs!

Wait! Unless maybe our heads are in different universes?

Anyway, I believe any anxiety I'm feeling is due to how old my idea now is. It's been over 2 1/2 years and I still haven't been able to do the proper tests. Had I had my health or some wealth (like apparently these guys) I would have surely KNOWN something nearly 2 years ago - even if it was that I was just mistaken.

Just think, I could still be mistaken and not know it!

I've forced myself to work through days, weeks and maybe even months of (my chronic) pain in trying to get a test device built to find out for sure and I'm finally getting close, but I'm still not there yet. I'm currently working on my fourth build attempt just to test that original idea.

I abandoned my first attempt early on when I came up with what I thought was a better basic design. I then started the second build attempt without knowing beforehand how I was going to resolve some of what I hoped to be minor technical issues. I then abandoned that one when I came up with another design that seemed to have a rather elegant solution to those technicalities.

That third design, however, contained lots of little parts and so it was being very time consuming to build. ...and then I saw I had some clearance issues with some of the mechanisms that I hadn't really given enough thought to beforehand and that I would actually needed to rebuild the wheel bigger and add even more of the very time consuming to build mechanisms or totally redesign them.

It was then that I came up with my current and hopefully final design with its simpler and more easily built mechanisms - and that I'm now trying to finish building. I did an all nighter Tuesday night - in my anxiety (lol).

I certainly have many other projects I could be (and maybe should be) working on and very little functional/comfortable time and yet I've forced myself to spend a great deal of time (relatively speaking) on this. So, I am somewhat invested in the outcome.

My major motivation isn't based upon Bessler's claims or that of anyone else in the "free energy" community, though, but rather on some things I've seen with my own eyes. It truly does look to me like my invention could possibly work - and based upon already accepted scientific principles - though used in a rather unique combination, of course.

I just need to know, man! Is that so wrong?!

The new patent laws might not be in my favor, though, if I am actually on to something and someone else really does have a competing design, too (not to discount anyone here, of course), and there are indeed past examples of inventors who have lost out by being just a few hours or days too slow.

Time and reality will tell us all, I guess.

Take care.

Dwayne

[Reticon]

"Unless maybe our heads are in different universes" - Too funny.

I'd sure like to know where your read that first part.

Finally, nothing wrong except you really should take a gamble and collaborate. If not on the general forum, then in the community forum, if not in the community forum, then on a private forum, if not there via PM or even contact Ralph's group. The odds are you will not solve it, the odds are that none of us will solve it. If it is even solvable. However, keeping secrets means that we can all waste the same time potentially on virtually identical ideas. That would be my only warning. We've had guys publish photos of their builds out here as they did them. That's neat and all, but they have yet to actually work after the show.

[iacob alex]

.....seems to have as a basic design , a "slightly modified " Theo Jansen's articulated mechanism , you can see at :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTS_E2jaZeE

We can suppose that Rarenergia.com , changed ("bended" ) the "as spider" walking mechanism (a crankshaft moves the legs) into a motion as on the spot ( the legs move the crankshaft ,due to gravity...it's their bet ).

I suppose they will confront the same problem regarding efficiency test , as Aldo Costa (see "Wheel vs. lever" topic ).

Al_ex

[zoelra]

Two new images have been added (30a and 31a).

[Grimer]

Thanks for keeping us up to date, zoelra.

For the convenience of forum members the link is below.

http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

Remember to scroll right down to the bottom of the page.

It would seem those holes in the discs were for attaching more arms.

It certainly looks promising.

Edit: It's beginning to look as though it's based on the Milkovic - in which case I reckon there's a good chance of success.

[Furcurequs]

Hey Frank,

Of all of Renato Ribeiro's patent applications that I've seen, I doubt I've seen the one for this thing. Regarding those patent applications that I have seen, it looked to me like they were derivatives of ideas already floating around in the "free energy" community. So, when I saw the latest pictures this evening, I thought of that, too. ...that it looked like some sort of one sided take-off of Milkovic's stuff.

Dwayne

[Grimer]

I was interested to find that Hans von Lieven has contributed a proposal for a Milko device as long ago as 2007.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Hans ... _95x95.gif

I was certainly impressed by Lieven's contributions to the Keenie wheel discussions.

Frank