Got ya thanks ICRCc
What we've been told in school is it is just theoretical right now no one can prove it works because there really isn't any info to prove it does
That's why when my prototype is done ill add the video so every can see how mine will work

ICRCC, I understand what you're getting at, but referring to valid arguments as "nonsense" is offensive and hostile.

I believe in a classroom, shooting someone's statement down like that is labelled inappropriate, and to continuously do it is not appropriate for a discussion of this type.

Unless the topic has changed since I last checked, this was a discussion as to the viability of zero point energy (toroidal energy). We have heard your... dismissal.

If you would like to participate in the conversation, by all means, but it makes it pointless to simply sit there and tell us it's not possible repeatedly. That isn't constructive. Perhaps you could use that negative energy and come up with other potential methods of harvesting toroidal energy.

Duffman, good luck with the prototype. I look forward to seeing it!

H

Thanks hammer
It's coming along just money's tight so can't put as much n as I want every month

On a number of occasions I have requested that you, Hammer, provide us with reliable, credible sources for the basis of your discussion. Although you did offer an excuse at the time you still have not supported your argument.

When presented with definitions of zero point energy, in an attempt to clarify the discussion, you replied with " Zero point energy is a stnonymous name for toroidal or near perpetual energy" also " The physics term zero point energy is not the same as the colloquial term" and you have used the term " toroidal energy". Spelling aside, did you just invent a new form of energy? Really? To participate in a meaningful discussion you must support your arguments. You cannot just invent words or concatenate them to produce meaningless terms then suggest that they are real.

Rather than support you argument you have suggested that I have suggested that I am "nitpicking", "closed minded", "dismissive", "offensive" and "hostile". You have also suggested that I "stop following the thread" and "get out of the discussion". At the International Peppers Network we have rules, you may attack an argument but you must remain respectful of other members, personal attacks are not tolerated.

As I said in an earlier post this a discussion on an interesting topic. I hope that you will be able to continue to contribute with the thread in a meaningful manner by adding reliable, credible sources for the basis of your discussion while being respectful.

ICRCC

First, energy derived from the Torus (look it up) is referred to as Toroidal energy. Real term.

Second, rather than "attacking the argument" you are simply dismissing the very idea that it is presently possible. You have made 11 posts in this thread, not one of them with any meaningful discussion regarding the topic. The first post tells us it's theoretically possible, but unlikely to exist in any of our lifetimes. The second post struck at the description given by a previous post, also dismissing the discussion. The third post tells us to read your first post. The fourth post is what some may call a joke, snidely dismissing the ideal that this energy exists yet. The fifth post is referencing a crystal pendant, which is completely unrelated to the topic. The sixth post once again tells us to read your first post. The seventh post is where you start asking for "credible links" to theory, construction, and specifications of Zero Point Generators. The seventh post references an alternate definition of "Zero Point energy" and the definition as given in the Stargate franchise. Okay, good attempt. The eighth post tells me that you want me to "quote reliable, credible sources", that this is a "fantasy", and again references the wrong definition. The ninth post is a line of smiley faces. The tenth post implied that the topic is "nonsense" and stating that you do not believe this energy is practical, once again telling me to find "reliable, credible sources". The eleventh post was your most recent and has now directly addressed my request that you cease your dismissive commenting and allow us to discuss this topic.

Please show me where you provided meaningful discussion to the topic and added any sort of substance? Not all science has to come from a fancy lab with billion dollar machines. In fact, due to the difficulty of metering and charging for the usage, I would not be surprised if funding simply isn't available for this research. Therefore, I find it difficult to expect to be able to find public data from a "credible" lab, aka: a funded lab, regarding Toroidal energy. Example: Ballard Fuel Cell. Originally a WATER fuel cell, now a Hydrogen cell.

I understand your skepticism and I welcome any discussions challenging the theory with counter-theory but I do NOT welcome closed minded, dismissive comments in a discussion of practical energy. I hope you understand I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the dismissive comments you keep throwing at the discussion. I would like to pool resources and come up with a usable device through which I can harness free or relatively cheap energy, but I find it impossible when a senior member of the forums is ruthlessly killing the discussion. Not the best example for the rest of the forum. In fact, if I had been doing so in a thread you Mod, I think I would likely have been instructed to cease. So please, in the interest of providing a stimulating environment in which to develop practical applications of theories which we can see you hold no stock in please back off and let people interested in discussing these devices actually discuss, instead of impeding positive progress with your negative comments.

I thought the International Preppers Network was built to connect preppers and allow them to discuss and plan? I didn't expect to have every single comment called impossible by a member of the staff.

I am disappointed.

H

**EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torus <- good read regarding Torus.**

I mean no disrespect - this is an objective comment that could bruise egos but as an engineer myself, I don't care about feelings.

ICRCC has a point. This is a prepper network, not a scientific forum on cutting edge energy generation that NASA hasn't delivered yet.

My cat has no qualifications to whip up a 5-star restaurant's authentic lasagna, nor does he bother trying to do that when there are others out there who are more qualified to do so. An armchair quarterback has more qualifications for his drivel than what this thread is worth...

This is pointless.

If all you're going to do is discuss whether or not we have "qualifications" or if the Great Government has allowed us to have this technology or cut down productive discussion, then lock the thread and throw away the key. I see no point in continuing a thread which has turned into a "prove it or it doesn't exist" thread.

H

I agree, it is pointless.

Every first or second year engineering/physics class in the last decade have at least half a dozen papers, experiments and prototypes for exactly what you are describing. Yes, admittedly you are referring to is zero point energy, not just any free energy hocus pocus, but knowing something exists is very different from actually utilizing it and/or even interacting with it.

This is 6 whole pages worth of talk about something that cannot be proven, because there is no peer-reviewed paper, no peer-reviewed scientific research, no peer-reviewed mathematical equation that actually suggests that this can be used or harnessed - at all. Note that I emphasized "peer-reviewed"? That means it has to stand up to the scrutiny of other researchers in the field.

Now I spoke about qualifications. Knowledge, discovery, and even art/design do not happen in a vacuum, so to speak. Things don't just "pop" out of nowhere without someone connecting dots (hint... you have to know that there are dots to connect, in order to connect the dots). In other words, not knowing or understanding something (i.e. having qualifications) in orders of magnitude LESS than someone in that particular field means... that this is one huge waste of time.

Wow all I can say is wow

Hammer I am unsure why you interpret every request that I have made for you to supply some credible background information for your argument as an attempt to dismiss your arguments. To this point in time you have failed to make any argument at all. Your reply to my last post was, yet again, a criticism of the poster.

Thank you for your link to Wikipedia on the torus. The torus as we all know is a three dimensional geometric shape. The link describes the geomantic shape, some of its variances and its mathematics. Perhaps you should read the article carefully as it does not refer to "energy". Not once! Neither does it refer to "Toroidal energy" Again not even once. The latter is hardly surprising because regurgitating someone's fanciful drivel does not of course make it so. When you have something credible to offer on this subject I would love to engage in a real discussion with you.

I'm done here. I'm not going to tolerate insult after insult. Yes, I realize I have "failed" to provide your requested links. That being said, you have "Failed" to submit a counter theory even once.

I will not be responding to further posts in this thread.

It's unfortunate that a request for more information, or a statement of the obvious (that this is unfounded) is interpreted as an insult.

There is an old Maxim that states, you should wait 24 hrs to respond to anything that makes you angry, at least take some time to ponder and consider the info/arguments / statements for a while before answering.

I find myself doing just that more and more, my life is much more mellow and relaxed now.
(ps been following the posts now since the 3rd post)

Agreed rabbit