India permits free energy technology despite threats from UK, US, Saudi Arabia

The concept that efficiencies cannot be greater than 100% is due to an incomplete understanding of the properties of space. The second law of thermodynamics must be modified to account for the fact that space is not empty, as has been taught for the last 150 years. The RLG operates at what has been called “over unity.” Many experienced electrical engineers engaged in the manufacture of AC generators have independently tested the RLG and confirmed the efficiency ratings that I have observed. It’s time for the physicists to get out of the way and modify their theories while the engineers go about the business of design and production.

The theory and mathematical models can be found at:
TEWARI.ORG
Recent Press Coverage:
Asia Times Article

BETCHA IT HASN’T.

LOL

Shoosh! I have a bloody headache!

Spiny Norman said:

BETCHA IT HASN’T.

If you refer to the article it cites India aligning it’s military development with Russia to combat the sanctions they have been threatened with by the Saudi’s etc. Seems a lot of effort to make with no measurable result.

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

BETCHA IT HASN’T.

If you refer to the article it cites India aligning it’s military development with Russia to combat the sanctions they have been threatened with by the Saudi’s etc. Seems a lot of effort to make with no measurable result.

I’ll believe it when it’s independently tested & proven. Not a second before.

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

BETCHA IT HASN’T.

If you refer to the article it cites India aligning it’s military development with Russia to combat the sanctions they have been threatened with by the Saudi’s etc. Seems a lot of effort to make with no measurable result.

I’ll believe it when it’s independently tested & proven. Not a second before.

Contrary to apparent assumption these articles are posted for investigation purpose and not to convince anyone of anything. I don’t have the same research experience as others here so post to find what I otherwise might not.

In Tewari’s words:
“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

the inventor’s words, paraphrased from a Tesla quote.

but it is the over unity claim that is the funnier.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

In Tewari’s words:
“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

the inventor’s words, paraphrased from a Tesla quote.

but it is the over unity claim that is the funnier.

:-)

Your mocking of the phrasing of other languages is juvenile and lacking in any insight into those cultures actual philosophies. Not everyone’s first language is English and English is not the only science based language.

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

In Tewari’s words:
“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

the inventor’s words, paraphrased from a Tesla quote.

but it is the over unity claim that is the funnier.

:-)

Your mocking of the phrasing of other languages is juvenile and lacking in any insight into those cultures actual philosophies. Not everyone’s first language is English and English is not the only science based language.

And yet ironically. English isn’t science-based at all. Not even a little bit.

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

In Tewari’s words:
“The universal matter is created out of prana since prana is aakaash in motion, and aakaash is the primordial superfluid substratum of the universe.”

the inventor’s words, paraphrased from a Tesla quote.

but it is the over unity claim that is the funnier.

:-)

Your mocking of the phrasing of other languages is juvenile and lacking in any insight into those cultures actual philosophies. Not everyone’s first language is English and English is not the only science based language.

And yet ironically. English isn’t science-based at all. Not even a little bit.

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

Postpocelipse said:

Many experienced electrical engineers engaged in the manufacture of AC generators have independently tested the RLG and confirmed the efficiency ratings that I have observed.

I’d love to know the name of these engineers, just in case one of them applies for a job that I’m involves with.

Contrary to apparent assumption these articles are posted for investigation purpose and not to convince anyone of anything.

good. cos it don’t convince me. load of tripe.

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Your mocking of the phrasing of other languages is juvenile and lacking in any insight into those cultures actual philosophies. Not everyone’s first language is English and English is not the only science based language.

And yet ironically. English isn’t science-based at all. Not even a little bit.

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

I see it isn’t your first language. You just showed that it’s based in Latin, French/Portuguese, and German. It is, however, frequently used to describe science, and indeed many other things.

Postpocelipse said:

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

Err, English is a Germanic language.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

Many experienced electrical engineers engaged in the manufacture of AC generators have independently tested the RLG and confirmed the efficiency ratings that I have observed.

I’d love to know the name of these engineers, just in case one of them applies for a job that I’m involves with.

probs don’t know their i’s from their j’s

ChrispenEvan said:

Contrary to apparent assumption these articles are posted for investigation purpose and not to convince anyone of anything.

good. cos it don’t convince me. load of tripe.

So glad to be reminded. It would be nice if you were able to contribute something specifically relevant.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

Many experienced electrical engineers engaged in the manufacture of AC generators have independently tested the RLG and confirmed the efficiency ratings that I have observed.

I’d love to know the name of these engineers, just in case one of them applies for a job that I’m involves with.

Yes.

:-)

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

And yet ironically. English isn’t science-based at all. Not even a little bit.

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

I see it isn’t your first language. You just showed that it’s based in Latin, French/Portuguese, and German. It is, however, frequently used to describe science, and indeed many other things.

English is the first language specifically designed to be academically sound beginning with it’s institution by King Arthur around 1000 AD. This makes it very much a scientific language.

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

Err, English is a Germanic language.

Go back to King Arthur “instituting” it’s development and start again huh…….

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

I see it isn’t your first language. You just showed that it’s based in Latin, French/Portuguese, and German. It is, however, frequently used to describe science, and indeed many other things.

English is the first language specifically designed to be academically sound beginning with it’s institution by King Arthur around 1000 AD. This makes it very much a scientific language.

Nope.

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

I see it isn’t your first language. You just showed that it’s based in Latin, French/Portuguese, and German. It is, however, frequently used to describe science, and indeed many other things.

English is the first language specifically designed to be academically sound beginning with it’s institution by King Arthur around 1000 AD. This makes it very much a scientific language.

Nope.

You think those 4 letters rewrite history? ok……………………….. loon.

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

English is the first language specifically designed to be academically sound beginning with it’s institution by King Arthur around 1000 AD. This makes it very much a scientific language.

Nope.

You think those 4 letters rewrite history? ok……………………….. loon.

Certainly not, but equally certainly by ignoring the thousands of years of science from other countries is.

Postpocelipse said:

sibeen said:

Postpocelipse said:

Having it’s origins in Latin and appropriating subject based grammar from French/Portuguese and German makes it an entirely science based language numnut……..

Err, English is a Germanic language.

Go back to King Arthur “instituting” it’s development and start again huh…….

I thought it was either Egbert or Alfred who united a Dane free Engle- Land

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Nope.

You think those 4 letters rewrite history? ok……………………….. loon.

Certainly not, but equally certainly by ignoring the thousands of years of science from other countries is.

No language was specifically instituted before English. King Arthur was attempting to gather the most sound wisdom into one language and English has only developed further along those lines since. I fail to see any point you are trying to make that isn’t simply oppositional.

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Postpocelipse said:

You think those 4 letters rewrite history? ok……………………….. loon.

Certainly not, but equally certainly by ignoring the thousands of years of science from other countries is.

No language was specifically instituted before English. King Arthur was attempting to gather the most sound wisdom into one language and English has only developed further along those lines since. I fail to see any point you are trying to make that isn’t simply oppositional.

Not Arthur. He was ficticious. Alfred.

When I were lad you needed Latin to be a doctor, lawyer etc.
There are places in Northern Italy where latin is still used, apparently.
It was hard, Father McFall belted latin into us, character building he said.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Certainly not, but equally certainly by ignoring the thousands of years of science from other countries is.

No language was specifically instituted before English. King Arthur was attempting to gather the most sound wisdom into one language and English has only developed further along those lines since. I fail to see any point you are trying to make that isn’t simply oppositional.

Not Arthur. He was ficticious. Alfred.

Oh that makes even more humorous.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Spiny Norman said:

Certainly not, but equally certainly by ignoring the thousands of years of science from other countries is.

No language was specifically instituted before English. King Arthur was attempting to gather the most sound wisdom into one language and English has only developed further along those lines since. I fail to see any point you are trying to make that isn’t simply oppositional.

Not Arthur. He was ficticious. Alfred.

Yeah I’ve been trying to refind the original links that left Arthur in my memory. About 5 years back I read of the “Arthur” who instituted English but this seems to have been revised.

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

No language was specifically instituted before English. King Arthur was attempting to gather the most sound wisdom into one language and English has only developed further along those lines since. I fail to see any point you are trying to make that isn’t simply oppositional.

Not Arthur. He was ficticious. Alfred.

Yeah I’ve been trying to refind the original links that left Arthur in my memory. About 5 years back I read of the “Arthur” who instituted English but this seems to have been revised.

Have to assume Alfred is the same as the title “the Great” was attached to this individuals record.

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

dv said:

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

I was just trying to dig up other references on it. Recommending people should ‘feel bad’ when they take an interest in something is an unhealthy approach to socialising and even academic investigation.

dv said:

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

I agree with point one.

I don’t agree with point 2, but I do think postpoc should stop calling people names just because they post something he doesn’t agree with.

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

I was just trying to dig up other references on it. Recommending people should ‘feel bad’ when they take an interest in something is an unhealthy approach to socialising and even academic investigation.

It’s a popular culture reference.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

dv said:

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

I was just trying to dig up other references on it. Recommending people should ‘feel bad’ when they take an interest in something is an unhealthy approach to socialising and even academic investigation.

It’s a popular culture reference.

Hadn’t seen that.

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/your-musics-bad-and-you-should-feel-bad

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

This article is bad and you should feel bad.

I agree with point one.

I don’t agree with point 2, but I do think postpoc should stop calling people names just because they post something he doesn’t agree with.

I called Spiny Norman a numnut for denying English as being a language developed around scientific principal. I’ve been called a great deal worse here and no one has stood up for me so thanks for your sentiment but no thanks.

I am in complete agreement that the article provides little of any research value. As previously referred to I posted to seek alternate reference. Had thought this might be obvious but forgot that people have a first preference for ridicule rather than clarification.

Exhibit 1.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Exhibit 1.

Oh is that so. You didn’t read the bits where I disclosed that I was simply seeking more info? I can see why you take yourself so seriously now………….. not.

I suppose my head should be read for continuing to expect meaningful contribution to a topic from some of you.

Postpocelipse said:

I suppose my head should be read.

couldn’t hurt.

ChrispenEvan said:

Postpocelipse said:

I suppose my head should be read.

couldn’t hurt.

if it does…

is probably phantom pain…

stumpy_seahorse said:

ChrispenEvan said:

Postpocelipse said:

I suppose my head should be read.

couldn’t hurt.

if it does…

is probably phantom pain…

Are you trying to relate on a human level? How sweet!