Jim Mich...

[ovyyus]

Maybe John's an oil industry troll too :D

[Grimer]

Yeah - well I wasn't serious. If only for your work on redrawing the Bessler diagrams you've contributed far more to this forum than most. I think your problem is that you see the world as a glass half empty rather than a glass half full.

[ovyyus]

My problem certainly isn't falling for everything I see on the internet :D

I don't see the world as a glass.

[Grimer]

Your problem is seeing a potential source of free energy and taking the pessimistic view of it being a fraud (without any evidence that it is a fraud) rather than the optimistic view that it is genuine - of looking for reasons it might be a fraud rather than looking for the reasons it might be true - of joining up with the team of lawyers for the prosecution rather than the team of lawyers for the defence - of wishing the man in the dock is guilty rather than wishing he is innocent.

After all you can't mount the defence that perpetual motion is impossible. If you believed that you wouldn't be a member of this forum.

[ovyyus]

Nonsense. I'm not the one trying to mount a case here.

[John Collins]

I based my response on the your remark, "The essential breakthrough is Cloud's recognition that energy can be obtained from oscillation."

Parametric oscillation as I'm sure you know involves varying the parameters during an oscillation, which isn't a million miles from what cc wrote.

Without a means of generating the varying of the parameters there is no free energy.

PS I'd like to take this opportunity to ask some posters to reduce the length of their post by at least 75 per cent as my eyes begin to glaze over and I fall asleep after about 50 lines.

I'm not criticising them but the massive chunks of prose, riddled with acronyms, that tend to accompany posts from some people would be infinitely more digestible if the authors read their posts and revised them before posting.

Ok I'll shut up now and take a well-earned nap!

JC

[Ed]

PS I'd like to take this opportunity to ask some posters to reduce the length of their post by at least 75 per cent as my eyes begin to glaze over and I fall asleep after about 50 lines.

You don't even enforce that on your own blog. If you did, you'd have fallen asleep at about "Schuhmann". ;-)

He knows he has the solution. The graduate student he consulted knows he has the solution and I know he has the solution. If you followed the argument you would know he has the solution, too.

Except Bill is not susceptible to the "Randell Parasite" like others seem to be.

Grimer, remember how adamant you were about RAR being it? Oh, it still is? RAR works. CC has the solution. bailywick1's works. oldnick, same old. Jim_mich 97+%. Etc. Etc. Everyone has something that "works"? Yet, nobody ever produces anything? This is obvious human nature at work here, and has nothing to do with the fullness of any glass.

Grimer, you seem to be a PM fanboy that wants to hang out with the band whenever they are getting attention. :-)

You can cobble together a test rig to verify the dominant flywheel thing to yourself without having to rely on faith. Just don't forget the third derivative commandment.

[Grimer]

Yes I was adamant on RAR and so far I have been proved wrong. You can make a long list of things I am sure were right and were subsequently found not to be right. How many times did Edison fail in producing his light bulb.

Thinking you're right and finding you're wrong is the nature of research.
Business men go bankrupt many times before ending up a billionaires.
A person who never makes mistakes never makes anything.

I've worked 40 years in engineering research labs. One of my successes (discovery of a show stopping defect in the Ross Spur motorway) saved the country enough money to pay for, not only my salary for the rest of my life but also the salary of my two experimental officers. The only way to success is through repeated failures.

Kipling had the right idea with his poem "If".

[ovyyus]

Some people are conditioned to habitually accept belief in a wrong thing rather than hold no belief in any thing.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Ovyyus,

After reading your post I find I cannot believe you!

I used to use the word believe a lot, but thanks to you I have tried to stop using that word. I now use these words, "I think", or, "I Know", the later not so much. Happy New Year to you all.

[Stewart]

Hi Johannesbender

This is not directly related to me from this doscussion but , i feel the need to place a reminder , the initial thought or impression i formed when i found the watermark was roman numerals CL or LC , then the possibility of R.C or C.R also came up from that brief discussion , and also the possibility of besslers work title.

Thanks for the link to your topic. I don't remember seeing it so I must have been away from the forum at the time.

There's no doubt the watermark is a fleur-de-lis with the initials CL. Since we know the correct orientation of a fleur-de-lis and also the correct orientation of letters of the alphabet, it can only be CL and not LC, RC or CR.

With a bit of research it should be possible to find the same watermark in other works, and also identify the paper-maker. The fact that the watermark in question is on a flyleaf means the page could have been added at a later date if the book had its cover replaced. If the pages with print had the watermark then we could be sure of the date.

That being said, a fleur-de-lis suggests a royal connection and the initials CL were used by Landgrave Carl/Karl. Bessler was living in Kassel under the patronage of Karl at the time of publication, so it wouldn't be a surprise that the printers used paper supplied by the royal papermakers.

we can try and make sense of everything as we all do by going with our personal ability to seek logic, but ultimately we just dont know anything for fact ,and this is the sad situation we find ourselfs in hundreds of years later .

I disagree. There is a lot we can find out and know for a fact by taking the time to research things properly. Three hundred years is not a very long time, and thanks to the invention of the printing press we're left with thousands of books from the time period on just about every subject which we can study for information.

All the best
Stewart

Happy New Year to all! Good luck with research and wheel building in 2017!

[ovyyus]

After reading your post I find I cannot believe you!

Excellent! Here's to new beginnings in 2017.

[Furcurequs]

and a Happy New Year. The Klingon had me going. 2017's going to be a very interesting year. I'm looking forward to it. I've never been so sure of something ever. Well, except for the last time. But this time's different. :)

It certainly is.

And whilst we are on the subject of Jim, he was on his way to moving up to F4 with his horizontal device as was Bessler with his horizontal windmill.

Unfortunately it proved a bridge too far for both of them.

Interestingly enough I now realise that Al Setalokin has succeeded in this quest with his WhipMag device though he won't admit it.

I love Desertphile's comment on the WhipMag. Its a real classic. :-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsRwuHyFZQU

I know that some members of this forum are familiar with the WhipMag but for those who aren't here is a video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9x ... 588BD210AD

Al tried to withdraw this video but he was too late. It had escaped into the wild. Someone had made a copy.

For someone interested in this subject I'd advise them to make their own copy since once it's realised the effect is real the PTB will undoubtedly suppress it.

Big whorls have little whorls
Which feed on their velocity,
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity(and beyond)

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v12 ... s3697.html

The WhipMag is a bogoff for the Keenie/Bessler wheel. :-)

Did Tinsel Koala ever actually admit to being Al Setalokin? From my lurking at overunity.com, it seemed that he would address the claims of "Al" without directly acknowledging that he was "Al."

I'm pretty sure that they are the same person, though. They at least seem to have the same voice and/or the same narrator in their youtube videos.

Anyway, from my lurking at overunity.com, I kind of admire Tinsel Koala. He actually seems to know his stuff, and so obviously also shows more skepticism than many over there when it comes to the free energy claims of others.

From what I've seen of him, I would also have to say that he almost certainly would have the ability to hoax the gullible, and that's exactly what I think he did with his, or I should say "Al's," "Whipmag" replication.

Were I not exploring some pretty radical ideas of my own (and also having some physical health issues), I'd be tempted to do something like that myself, perhaps.

If I thought I was actually seeing positive results with my own electromagnetic experiments, however, and experiments that I'm still yet to perform, btw, I would want a "skeptic" with "Tinsel Koala's" demonstrated abilities to double check me and try to replicate my results.

Even though "skeptics" may tend to be cynics, too, and so maybe not as likely to be the most creative of sorts, I think their input would still be very valuable if one had an actual working device. If you can convince a cynic, you may actually have something!

Einstein, of course, spoke of the value of imagination, but there is a big difference between imagined fiction and an imagined hypothesis that can be shown to be valid through proper experiment.

Dwayne

[Grimer]

Did Tinsel Koala ever actually admit to being Al Setalokin? From my lurking at overunity.com, it seemed that he would address the claims of "Al" without directly acknowledging that he was "Al."

No - but he obviously is. Both names are anagrams of Tesla's.

Anyway, from my lurking at overunity.com, I kind of admire Tinsel Koala. He actually seems to know his stuff, and so obviously also shows more skepticism than many over there when it comes to the free energy claims of others.

He's a wonderful technician. Some of his builds are fantastic. You should see his Stirling with helium as the working fluid.
As for his ability as a scientist - not so good. I very much doubt if he's ever published a scientific paper. In an argument I once threatened to find his real name and address. He pleaded for me not to since some woman on one of the forums was having a nasty slanging match with him. So I didn't.

From what I've seen of him, I would also have to say that he almost certainly would have the ability to hoax the gullible, and that's exactly what I think he did with his, or I should say "Al's," "Whipmag" replication.

No way. I'm sure that was genuine. I watched one of the first trials on the internet. It was the middle of the night in Britain.

Also, he's admitted to me that he attempted to replicate it but failed. The original is the only one he got to work. So either he's lying or it's genuine.
I've never known him to lie - unlike Sean McCarthy of Steorn who I caught out in a particularly stupid lie.

Even though "skeptics" may tend to be cynics, too, and so maybe not as likely to be the most creative of sorts, I think their input would still be very valuable if one had an actual working device. If you can convince a cynic, you may actually have something!

If you get a working device the thing you won't have difficulty in showing any competent scientist or engineer that it works. Providing, of course you're not secretive and paranoid like Bessler.

[Furcurequs]

I found the following quotes at overunity.com. ...and I've tried to format them in a way that we are used to seeing.

Re: Electrostatic Devices and Energy : The Genius of Tinsel Koala

Al's most impressive tinkering was the one that gave him the WhipMag. I'm afraid that's always going to haunt him.

It's odd that you should bring that up, Frank.... since I can recall post after post of "Al" telling you that there was nothing OU, nothing unusual happening in the device which you mention, and YOU proclaiming loudly that he was "FOS" and that the thing was indeed total proof that magnet motors are OU. The record shows that YOU were pushing that device as "OU".... not "al". So if anyone is haunted..... BOOO !

(Did I scare you?)

If both "alsetalokin" and "TensilKoala" are honest, then why won't you believe them/him?! Why won't you take their/his word?!

Since they/he are/is the ones/one who actually built the device, do you not think they/he might have had some information that you don't?

Is it that they/he are/is not /a scientists/scientist but rather just /a technicians/technician who are/is being genuine but just don't/doesn't know what they/he once had? :(

How are you ever going to convince them/him that they/he had an actual working perpetual motion machine?!!

Darn you, you measly technicians/technician!! Why can't you be /a scientists/scientist?!

I'll certainly check out the videos with their/his Stirling engine that uses helium as the working fluid, however. That sounds right up my alley.

Would you believe that I have a tank of helium sitting in one of my store rooms that I purchased for use in my own heat to a more usable form of energy experiments?

ETA: I'm still looking for TinselKoala's vids of the Stirling, but this looks to be a nice demo of the difference between air, helium and CO2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uysxKgr8Qjk