over-unity devices

This is of course complete bollocks.
Any government which had access to an over unity generator would exploit it commercially.
A qualified consultant electrical engineer.... wow...PMSL

Please don't waste our time with tripe like this.
It's even less credible than our financial institutions who purport to 'create wealth'.

Del

Not only are you rude, but you know absolutely nothing about Governments, especially

your own.

So, how long have you been a professional skeptic.?

If you had gone to the web page as I suggested, you would not be here wasting everyones time

Maybe I'd have gone to the web page if you'd had the wit to link it properly?

Anyhow.. if you think that I'm rude you must have led a very sheltered life.
My dealings with managers, salesmen and marketing types over many years has certainly left me skeptical.
Give me a good hands on multi-disciplined engineer with plenty of experience anytime.
I can assure you that if I'd created an over unity device it would be on the market and in the public domain already, with the techincal details available.
These scams never give any detail at all and then blame everyone else for supressing the facts.... because there are no facts.

If it's possible then... yes please give the world free energy and I'm sure a grateful world will shower the inventor with plaudits and reward....
otherwise ************* .

Del

Sheltered life?

Do you think for one moment, that the rich oil producers and coal mining companies would forgo their fortunes, for free energy devices ?

Governments do not have the power to close down these large companies.Efficient generating devices have to be phased in, and these changes will be introduced at first

into the domestic market. Over unity devices are here to stay

so get used to the idea.

Let me start by admitting that I have never built or made any attempt to build an Over-unity device. However, some of the remarks being made here are rather curious:For instance how exactly does a Researcher introduce a new over-unity invention to the world? I ask the question because I feel that the deck may just be stacked against the researchers.

Now consider that a researcher discovers an over-unity device so he/she must first apply for patent. The patent office records the application and first submits the application to the DOD for review for potential military application before being processed, and any application with such potential is immediately clamped down and the researcher paid the cost of development and sent home, and never to talk about it again. So possibility one the technology is lost to the researcher.

Applications without significant military potential is returned to the patent office which then reads the application and does one of two things: rejects it as a "Tripe" or "seeks collaboration?".The collaborator may even steal the idea. So possibility two, the technology is lost to the researcher.

Now say the researcher refuses then his device is a "Tripe" or worse. So possibility three, the researcher is a fraud.

On the flipside the researcher in order to keep the technology to himself announces it and invites investors to come to witness, and then a Govt arrests him for intent to defraud because there are volumes of opinion asserting that such devices are "Tripe"s. Then the Govt discovers it actually works, so the device is siezed under concerns of national security but as evidence of fraud and the demo is stopped anyway. So possibility four, the technology is lost to the researcher

Remember what I am doing here is simply painting all possible scenarios, whether plausible or not just to be comprehensive. In any event, I hope you understand my dilemma and can provide an answer to my starting question: How exactly does a researcher introduce his device to the world under these conditions?

Thank you all in advance, for your answers.

editorgbanalysts

What you have said is absolutely correct. The number of casualties over the last 100 years as a result from what you have described, are numerous.

The number of Australian patents that have disappeared over many years from this country are heart breaking.

The Australian Government is under some sort of "agreement" with the United states which effectively prevents our Government from giving financial assistance to any invention that even smells of a weapon , or if in any manner would diminish the profitability of US major corporations.

These two inventors in Queensland have acquired international patents for their electrical apparatus.

A local millionaire has put up the finance so that the patent for the Electrical Generating Device will remain here in Australia.These devices have already been taken to other countries for assessment.

There are two devices which have been patented;

1. The over unity motor generator

2. An electrical converter which will cut the electricity running costs

By as much as 75 %

The latter will most likely be the first unit to be marketed .

WARO

Dear shy Guest,

It is pity you do not register but as you wish. I wanted ONLY to stress that a patent is NOT a quality certificate and does not confirm the feasibility of the presented and patented idea. This is the responsibility of the person who applied for the patent.

You should look at all the artifacts which have been applied for patents you will wonder.

Unfortunately for you, you are one of the "believers" who consider that all engineers working with "old and obsolete" principles are too limited to understand the high level of the modern projects you believe in. I bet you despise all people who were in school, who attended universities because they are impregnated by the conspiracy against "new and progressive " ideas, to old minded not able to understand the fact that a break through can be.

I am sincerely sorry for you you must suffer a lot in this world where nobody is on your side. What a pity!

I wanted ONLY to stress that a patent is NOT a quality certificate and does not confirm the feasibility of the presented and patented idea.

This is true, a patent does not gaurantee performance.

And claiming to have a a patent is not be used as a conformation of performance.

With all due respect guest. This sounds like a load of BS to me. One of the most devastating weapons of recent times, was invented and patented by an Australian. Namely 'metalstorm', which is a kind of super machine gun, that has a field of fire so devastating it can even bring down incoming missiles.

how exactly does a Researcher introduce a new* over-unity invention to the world?

See #3 and #11

If it works it would be paying the neighbourhoods utility bills inside a fortnight and would make national and international TV about a week after that. Two weeks later the inventors would get a nomination for the Nobel prize and be on every chat show from the USA to China.

All through my life I've met whingers who are full of excuses as to why they are ignored, overlooked, can't do this that or the other, if you want to do something just do it. Ok you'll have to face the consequences...

So to sumarise...if it works, build one ... the savings on your (and you co-workers) utility bills will fund the next 2..4...8...16...32...64...128 get the idea?

Del

* The word new is superfluous since there are no over-unity machines in existence, it is bound to be 'new'

(I'm out)

Del! Good you got out, because you clearly never even understood my question that you set about answering; and given the quality of your answer I will not even waste any further time to explain the question.

Perhaps this extract from your website and written by you might assist Dels' understanding

Nobody has built an over unity device.

"Corroboration" which is independent verification of claims or principles is quite different than "collaboration," "work with in support of common goal." Patent offices do not assign "collaborators." ( FYI, Corroborate comes from the latin word for strength, its formal definition is : to support with evidence or authority : make more certain.)

Corroboration is how Science works, someone makes a claim, it is tested it is verified. (corroborated) In this case and every other case we have seen to date on these boards, not one of these passionate scammers has ever answered my two simple questions : how much energy was input to the device? How much energy was output? An audit or "corroboration" of the facts of the claims would then be quite in order.

Please give the illustrative case of your point three, where such a working device was siezed by the govt and the inventor jailed. That sounds like the medieval church in europe. It doesn't ring true for Western Civilization in these times but hey, "duces tecum" Bring thy list of names.

The one scenario that you omitted is the relevant and controlling one in this situation. By definition, there are no "over unity devices" that do what is claimed.

By failing to understand the nature of these claims, folks get suckered into these people's delusional world and diverted from our real work of assisting people working on projects of worth.

That is the true "loss to Society" by these wild a$$ claims of con$piracy.

Del had it spot on.

in absence of data, this is just ignorance at best, intentional fraud at worst.

milo

I can parse the language with you and prove to you that my choice of the word "collaborate" was precisely what I meant to write but I won't. Try reading the words in context again and again and sooner or latter you will get the picture.

Yet that also does not take away from the action you are suggesting with the use of the word "corroborate" Thank you.

However, my question which you also seem unable to understand and answer remains. Yet I am curious about this your statement:

Please give the illustrative case of your point three, where such a working device was siezed by the govt and the inventor jailed. That sounds like the medieval church in europe. It doesn't ring true for Western Civilization in these times but hey, "duces tecum" Bring thy list of names.

Tell me where exactly is the phrase "and the inventor jailed" written by me? Are you reading texts with comprehension or reading texts with interpretation as you see fit?

it's a fraud and fake and anyone that believes in it is not eligible to be called an engineer.

Your mightyness, I love your authoritative demeanor. It is quite impressive.

Any government which had access to an over unity generator would exploit it commercially.

Not totally true, our government would classify it for miltary purposes, and the people that are no longer needed would..............disappear.

I agree with this point.

Please don't waste our time with tripe like this.
It's even less credible than our financial institutions who purport to 'create wealth'.

on the backs of others.

phoenix911

A simple test to see if it is genuine would be to chech the 'inventors' utility bills.
If they are still paying for power then it's a scam!

OH BOY!!!! HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!! And right after self-professed Messiah Noblefuse's thread was shut down due to his B***s*** rantings too!!!!

Good news!

As Dean of the School of Applied Phrenology at Holy Toledo State Normal School for Young Matrons, I have investigated these claims and found the problem to be that Queensland, being in the Southern Hemisphere, is upside down, causing the numerator and denominator to be inverted. Thus, what appears to be 5:1 to them is 1:5 to the rest of the world.

And it is rotating in the opposite direction as well.

OMG! Now we will have to rewrite all the laws of physics. Run for the hills! Civilization has ended! Save yourselves...oh, sorry. For a minute I thought I was a stockbroker.

About this stockbroker thing.

When the naughty stockbrokers and bankers in the north do irresponsible things we responsible lot in the south get punished. (downside up)

Maybe the value of the Rand must be 10:1 instead than 1:10.

Holier than though, As a Queenslander I would let you know we have had great inventions, we once had a premier that promoted a car that ran on water, now which way is up and which way is down, Ha.... South is up and North is down, thats better.

Regards JD. QLD.

So you're the Dean of the School of Applied Phrenology at Holy Toledo State Normal School for Young Matrons? How much does the course cost, and how long does it last? I'm thinking of enrolling my pet Tyrannosaurus Rex Godzilla in it. I strongly believe that he'll top the class because despite having a brain the size of a walnut, he's still far more intelligent than many humans. And how do I know this? Because unlike many humans, he doesn't believe in crap like conspiracy theories and over-unity devices.

Chris Leonard,Your chronic skepticism is revealed in your very language, this comes about because you seemed to have led a sheltered life.

You show signs of acute anger when every you are faced with the possibility that your opinions on any thing are challenge.You have not taken into account that almost every thing that you believe in implicitly was years ago, considered rubbish

These critics were of a mind set, exactly like yours.

During the last 100 years people ( mostly non academics) have worked hard , not just to make a fortune, but to make an effort to bring to the people of the world, cheaper and more efficient extraction of electrical energies.

Their greatest obstacle in their efforts to achieve this has been, not only skeptics, but by corporations with large investments in the oil. and coal industries.

The major universities that were solely funded by multinationals were geared to arrange research to this philosophy...if the product will make money, or a weapon then this will always have priority.

Over unity devices will seriously curtail the wealth of the greedy shareholders.

Do you really imagine that these investors give a dam about atmospheric pollution?

Time and time again inventors over these last 100 years have had their inventions destroyed, their lives put at risk, many have been assassinated, many millions of dollars have been used to prevent any of the highly efficient devices every seeing the light of day.

I strongly suggest that you do some home work, go over the history of the development of electrical generating devices and discover for your self.

Let me warn you....don't bother looking in the University libraries, you won't find any much there at all.

Has any one mentioned the Adams motor efficiency levels, or the Free Energy device located in Switzerland, which has been producing kilowatts of electrical energy for over 20years.?

WARO

Da, da, da, da, da.

Do not attempt to adjust your forum. We have assumed control.

http://timstvshowcase.com/tzone.html

"Do not attempt to adjust your forum. We have assumed control."

I think you mistook the "Twilight Zone" for "The Outer Limits". Ah what the hell, they're both great shows anyway, and even their most outlandish plotlines make more sense than the rantings of any over-unity believer who refuses to back up his claims with proven facts.

EditorBGanalysts has urged us all to keep an open mind on the possibilities of such a device. Actually, I think all of us ARE keeping an open mind; that's why we ask for irrefutable evidence, which unfortunately, as Chris Leonard put it, the over-unity inventors ALWAYS refuse to provide.

The onus is on you and your ilk to prove that your devices work. We're waiting...

Dear "guest"

You just come on our forum and start calling us names?

Chris Leonard politely captions his comment with "I'm Sorry" and that registers as "signs of acute anger" in your delusional conspiracy world? Chris is not only a thoughtful poster but also one of our hosts: he works for the company that provides this forum. From where you come from is being rude to ones hosts a custom?

We can tell by your words that they don't teach science there either.

How would you know what Chris Leonard "believes in implicitly was years ago rubbish?" Is mind reading at a distance another over unity talent in your genome?

You condemn the corporations with large investments as obstacles to progress; to those of us who understand science, scientific method and modern rules of evidence, the role of the corporation as an institution driving mankind's material welfare is undeniable.

I don't know of a single "major university" "funded solely by multinationals" as you charge, please give us audit-able list, making sure that "solely" is understood to mean "No other sources of funding." ( As a personal courtesy and to show you that i am a man of good will, I will give you the first candidate: Hamburger U run by McDonald's , arguably a multinational. Your list please...)

You type words, but intelligible meaning is nowhere to be found.

Over unity is just a way of saying " I am profoundly ignorant of the scientific method, mathematics, the custom of words having meaning, and have had my amygdala hijacked."

The folks on this forum have done their homework, shucks, they've even registered on CR-4 to establish a traceable, consistent identity so that other participants can judge the value of their advice based on their track record and peer ratings. If anyone needs to do homework, mon frer, its you. Try looking up laws of thermodynamics, perpetual motion, heck, physics in science fiction might even be a good introduction to the field.

Your advice to avoid university libraries is well taken. We might actually find some facts and established science which might contradict whatever the heck hijacked your amygdala. Oh,sorry about that word again, try looking it up in the magazines there at the check out counter.

As for kilowatts of free electrical energy for over 20 years from a free energy device in switzerland, I wonder why Dr Ulf Bossel of European Fuel Cell Forum didn't mention that to me when I saw him at the last US fuel cell forum I attended. He's probably been bought off or threatened by a multinational, no doubt.

Please take your rantings somewhere else. Our children give us better challenges than your X file plot rejects. At least they form their discussions in the form of a question...

And before posting in an online community, try lurking to see if it's congruent with your beliefs. You clearly didn't bother to try that here, hence your 'cordial reception.'

milo "looking forward to that list of universities solely funded by multinationals"

Read again the different comments and since I shall be in Switzerland in couple of weeks I am ready, if you give the address where you know the free energy device is supplying energy from nothing, to visit the place and convince myself that what I know is rubbish. I do not know by myself where to find it since you said in libraries is nothing to be found.

Ok? I expect your informations as soon as possible.

Now this is the answer to my question that Del and Milo and His mightyness seem unable to comprehend.

Give each such person who is not asking to be given any money the time to prove him/herself right or wrong instead of a blanket dismissal.

I should like to think that many years ago many pupils and students challenged to name the planets of our solar system, would have scored a fail mark in giving the answer that "Pluto is not a planet". Without any doubt Del and Milo would promptly assert the absoluteness of the fail mark, and His mightyness would even suggest a flogging of such students. But aaaaahhhhhhh.

Dear Waro,

If you are so convinced that the truth is on your side why do you not take the opportunity to convince an unbeliever?

I offered - for free - since I shall be in Switzerland to visit the site where the marvelous Free Energy Device works since already 20 years.

Why do you not mail me the location?

If you do not do it I have the feeling that you are not a true believer and that you are not sure about what you advance.

Take such an opportunity from Australia to Switzerland it is a long way for me it is not too far and I will be anyway on the spot.

I expect your message, of course if you are a serious person.

"This machine exists today in a commune near Bern Switzerland... Methernith in Linden ."

WARO, nail this down a little further, with an actual address, because, I can't be wandering around the streets of "Methernith in Linden", asking everyone I meet, where this device is. They will think I'm just another crazy American. nick_name, I've got some time off due, and can certainly afford a trip to Europe anytime, so, I'll meet you there. Looks like we have the opportunity here to finally put this to rest. Of course, when we return home with such promised findings, we will be arrested and thrown in jail for the rest of our lives. But for me, it will be worth it!

So, WARO, PUT THE F UP, OR SHUT UP

ps, I really mean it, I'll purchase a ticket today to actually see such a device.

Perhaps if you would not be so antagonistic in your posts to Waro, he might even give you the precise location.

"Perhaps if you would not be so antagonistic in your posts to Waro, he might even give you the precise location."

Oh, please, a statement like that reduces your credibility to zero. What, I'm supposed to kiss WARO's ass to get a viable address? Try this sometime, put your money where your mouth is, as I've done. I'm willing to call your bluff, to actually go there and see for myself.

Once again, put up, or shut up!

My bluff? What bluff? Did I issue a bluff? Did I offer anything, or claim to have anything? You really are beginning to show you have got issues when you no longer know who issues a bluff and who does not.

Go ahead continue to show your bad attitude to these people you do not even know. Do I care whether you behave nicely to people or not. I just thought that you might even learn something from the "over-unity" guys thats all. I see you are not capable of learning and I should think that you will not be able to convince them to show you anything. So you will continue to show your bad attitude issues.

I apologise sir, for aiming my rant at you. It was actually aimed at WARO. It's really not a "bad attitude" on my part. I've been involved in "scientific study" for the last 35 years of my life, and for someone to claim, with nothing but vague references to devices, that cannot be verified, I will call him to task. If WARO wants to "preach the the choir", that's fine. However, he's at the wrong forum. Call me any name you want, accuse me of anything, including not being capable of learning, but you are wrong. All I ask is to be shown. I will be in the Netherlands anyway on 19-Dec, so, a side trip to Switzerland is entirely possibly.

.......It is best to remain silent and be thought a fool...............

than to post such remarks, there bye removing all possible doubt.

WARO

Waro,

Now that Milo, emc c, and I are in synch with respect to objectively learning more about the "over-unity" devices you are working on or aware of, can you tell us how you would like us to proceed to accomplish this objective? I firmly believe that such an effort by disparate persons could begin the process of ascribing credibility to your efforts - yours and that of others likely to be new relative to the past devices that have created this stench about your development efforts.

Blessed are the peacemakers?

"Now that Milo, emc c, and I are in synch with respect to objectively learning more about" WORKING "over-unity" devices you are working on or aware of."

The insertion of the critical word "WORKING" may seem to be a fine point in your generous offer, but it is precisely the point, and the critical issue behind the brouhaha. Noone here is interested in investigating conjecture, and/or speculative "if you only believed me messianic visions of this would work if ..."

Only working devices claimed to be "over unity" need apply.

Data please.

milo "did you know that Doubting Thomas was born in Missouri?"

Alright Waro,

Qualify the "over-unity" devices as appropriately by "working, functional, or operational".

May you should start by telling us about devices following these steps:

For Input Data:
The means of energy input, measurement instrument and measured value;

For Output Data:
The measurement instrument and the measured value;

Now if we disagree with you on the bases of any scientific principle we believe then we can ask you to explain the discrepancy, or give suggestion of where the extra energy may be coming from.

I am recommending the explanation because by my reading of the arguments as explained to me by others who disagree with you, the "over-unity" researchers believe that energy is all around us and that the devices seem to be able to extra the energy from the surrounding and make then available in accessible form as the output of your devices. So as an insight into the device an explanation of the component of the surrounding from where - you firmly believe - the energy is extracted would be nice.

Two things will happen from this explanation: First it will enable us to assume the conservation of energy without immediate validation, Second, it will then move the analysis to the means of extraction of the ambient-energy.

Your thoughts are welcomed.

If you would be so kind as to ask the following question to WARO:

Energy is indeed all around us. No serious engineer or scientist disputes that. The matter is the multiplicity of that energy, i.e., that energy has to spontaneously move to a lower multiplicity to be used in an over-unity device. Such an occurrence necessarily reverses the causal arrow. The question, then, is: If the causal arrow reverses, which other arrows follow?

I would like to mention again that we have no reaction from Waro with respect to the precise coordinates of the place where the wonder can be found.

I would like to ask you how you can imagine with your personal skills what will make the surrounding energy move without creating a potentail difference, I never saw in my actual life and on the planet earth a river flowing uphill. As was pointed very correctly usually energy goes from a high to a low potential and this is a reason why you being a "hot source" with respect to your environment do not burn and are still alive. If energy would go from low to high potential your body temperature will instantly go up and since there is -nobody contest it- a lot of energy around you will become imediately a torch.

You should say thanks for this property.

If Waro is the serious person he and you claim him to be then he should give imediately the informations two SERIOUS participants ask for.

I notice that even you who supported Waro do not get any constructive answer and you were not aggressive with him.

In a former comment I wrote that if no correct answer comes it will be better to close the thread and do not loose any more time and "energy" with such discussion about the possibilty of unpossible.

I do not ask anymore for the closing since now I start to have fun.

Nickname,

I have been traveling all day and just got access to a computer, and that explains why I did not respond to your earlier posting.

That said even if I was not traveling and had seen it I still will not bother to give you any specific answer for two reasons. First you subsumed that I support Waro, and you can not be more wrong. I neither support nor oppose Waro. I am simply curious as to how he and his colleague over-unity researchers were accomplishing the task or the ideation proposed to accomplish the task even if they have really not accomplished it as yet. Secondly, I did not propose the concept underpinning the over-unity research, so the driving creativity if any has not originated from me making your question about my opinion based on my personal skill as of no relevance and value in this consideration.

I am curious about their creativity and would like them to begin to reveal to the rest of us, curious souls, how they are actually approaching the issue you raised, which happens to be also the driving force of my curiosity. I am also interested in the question also posed by TVP45.

So there.

".......It is best to remain silent and be thought a fool...............

than to post such remarks, there bye removing all possible doubt."

And you have just proven the wisdom of your own words here by claiming that over-unity devices exist and yet refusing to prove your own claims of the existence of such devices.

A thought occurs here. Perhaps the focus should be on near-unity devices. In calc, you learn about the results of equations approaching infinity or zero. If you get close enough, the energy output of a given device takes longer to run out. Perhaps the use of unstable magnetic arrangements could get close.

Their claim violates the principle of conservation of energy. They admit as much in the video, in an oblique manner. They say this invention is worth millions, but really can't say for sure. That would be true if they could scam millions from unwary and scientifically illiterate investors, which it appears is happening. If it were real, millions would be chump change. It would be worth trillions if it worked. There are a billion people worldwide who could afford the $5 K cited as the cost. That amounts to $5 trillion (US meanings of billion and trillion, not UK).

There is another error in the video that may simply be the scientifically illiterate media people. They say the unit provides 24 kW per day. That has no meaning. Kilowatt is a unit of power, which is energy per unit time. Power per unit time is a meaningless term. If the unit can provide 24 kW continuously, that is more than adequate for household use (unless you are Al Gore, then you might need several of these in parallel).

Finally, note the "body language" of the electrical "consultant." He gives off all the signs of nervousness and lying. He blinks a lot, and his mannerisms are quite exaggerated, at least for an engineer. Maybe not so for an actor.

I am curious if you have ever applied the macro energy balance we generally write as per Thermodynamics to the "over-unity" believers definition of their science.

I remember giving a scientific explanation of what I thought was happening about a situation that some one suggested was an indication of over-unity. The point I am making is that instead of a straight forward application of standard techniques perhaps we should consider the situation and then advance scientific explanations to the observations until we can no longer do so. I may even assure you that you may end up proving the Principle of Conservation of Energy for each situation presented to you.

Principle of Conservation of Energy appears to be relevant while the experiment is confined to the application of "energy out does not exceed energy in"

It has that "fear factor" built into it... as with Einstein equations on velocity of electrons.

However, when the extraction of energy is accelerated beyond the theoretical barrier...The theory falls apart. It is not the only one that has shown to be wanting, and it will not be the last.

I have found to my dismay, that should a theory be conceived with in those cloistered walls then, there will no long term guarantee, that it will continue remain a constant. And I think it a dangerous practice to imagine that it will.

Facts that are found in nature, are the only un-disputed constants that we have .

For those interested in the Free energy generator in Switzerland,This machine exists today in a commune near Bern Switzerland... Methernith in Linden .

WARO

You have unfortunately to refine you indications since:

1- There is no Methernith in Linden near to Bern (Switzerland)

I verified it wit help of an official site where you can as well check it www. mappy.com (If you want to use it consider please that it is in French and in this language I dare doubt you master Switzerland is called Suisse).

2- There is a small village named Linden at 29,1 km from main railway station Bern. It has 1 (one) main street and 2 (two) other.

If you look with help of mappy you can see its plan.

So what you gave is not enough. Be more precise and I promised you that when in Switzerland I shall go there. Before if you give a name I shall of course check if such a person lives in Linden or surroundings.

I am VERY serious since I am a correct ENGINEER and always ready to learn more but at same time I do not support people who react in an aggressive way (many times insulting) if we do not share their "beliefs".

If you do not give more precise details it means that you do not know what you speak about and I shall ask to close this thread.

You know, I just reread this post critically. Under Swiss patent law, your disclosure of this machine has likely made it "state of the art". OK, no patent possible, so can we have the location and all the details?

I have read many self-serving posts of people thinking themselves erudite when in fact the posts they proffer raise questions about their scientific curiosity. Speaking and writing conclusively without allowing oneself the full exposure to an issue is just a demo of lack of scientific curiosity.

Take the time and prove him wrong and both he and you will learn from each other.

I have not been to Switzerland before, yet Waro was willing to let me become aware of his technology, and to give me the opportunity to study it and prove him wrong. Yet, he would not bother with the people whom he felt he did not have to bother with.

Now Waro has given us some information about where the device is, so everybody go ahead and call his bluff: Visit the device and prove him wrong.

Did you not understand me deliberately or accidentally?

The burden of proof is completely on you. You're the one trying to sell a new theory.

TVP45 makes a number of good points throughout this thread, for which I have awarded GAs. The burden of proof is clearly on the the person claiming new science in conflict with accepted doctrine.

But in all of this voluminous thread, to which I also contributed, what is important is not what we say here, but what we do or don't do ("The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here").

The scam perpetrator (or inspired inventor, take your pick) is busy fleecing the unwary of their hard-earned money (or raising capital, again depending on your point-of-view).

Now if those of us who consider the conservation of energy a fundamental law of physics were to get in the way of the scammer and his victims, and forbid him to con these people, and forbid them to "invest" in the scam, then perhaps Waro and editorgbanalysts could make some kind of case that we were standing in the way of progress. But no one is doing anything of the kind. The scammer is free to solicit victims. Eventually it will come to light that it is indeed a scam, and then the victims will bring suit in court on the basis of fraud, and there will be a big stink, but the money will have mysteriously vanished.

Bottom line: No one is getting in the way of the scam. It will play out and in the fullness of time those who wish for something for nothing will once again be disappointed.

On a global scale, this is a nit. A few "investors" are going to take it on the chin. Consider the recent but infinitely greater tragedy based on the same desire - something for nothing. The fallout from that disaster is going to be cataclysmic. I refer, of course, to the recent elections in the USA.

And the contributions he has made are within the context of my postings? Or in the context of your global attitude to the matter of "over-unity" devices?

Look, I simply suggested that instead of being immediately antagonistic to everybody who proposes a science concept you do not agree with, try taking the time to prove the person wrong within the context of existing body of knowledge. I even went further and gave the example of when I had proffered an explanation to an observation that one of these fellows suggested was indicative of "over-unity" science [thereby showing that the explanation nullified the argument for "over-unity"].Instead of comprehending my suggestion you are here promoting a position that has no bearing with my thrust.

Now tell me what point exactly are you making?

Now I do know that you utterly lack the capacity of comprehension. You say, "I am selling a new theory"? What new theory have I propounded in course of this discourse? Please go and read the very first sentence of my posting of #28. You truly are disappointing. I realize now that you are not deserving of any more response from me on this discourse.

The new theory of the non-conservation of energy.

Please read paragraph two of my post #52 above and you should realize that you need to do analytical reading. Meanwhile let me repeat my thrust that seems to have escaped you too.

My statement was that if you would take the time to analyze the device you would even find a scientific explanation for the observation the persons are calling "over-unity". Now tell me if in fact you can find a scientific explanation for it within the existing body of knowledge, what then does that tell you?

Conservation of energy is a fundamental law of physics. It is a subset of conservation of mass-energy, but that is a moot point unless the device is disassembling or fusing atoms. A device which creates five times the input energy is creating energy. You violate physics. You have not explained why conservation of energy is wrong. You simply disbelieve it. This is your right, but no one is obligated to listen to you, or pay you the slightest bit of attention, other than to swat you away like an irritating insect. In a related thread, I asked that CR4 create a special mandatory category for posts which violate fundamental physics. That way those who enjoy the freak show can watch it, and the rest of us need not be disturbed.

emc c,

Please come along with me on this rational extrapolation: If you can find a scientifc explanation [based on the existing body of knowledge] for an observation advanced by the "over-unity" believers then it means that the device does not violate the laws of Physics/Thermodyanmics or what have you. Further given that "over-unity" is not part of the existing body of knowledge then the device you have just analyzed is simply an innovation but not necessarily an "over-unity" device. Do you get it now? Look existing body of scientifc knowledge complies with the Priciple of Conservation of Energy. I hope that this is clearer.

In the YouTube video, the "inventor" states the device puts out five times what goes into it. Clear violation. There is no known science that can explain that. The onus is on the inventor/proponents of the invention to explain the new science. No such explanation appears forthcoming.

I have seen no YouTube demo; my suggestion here is simply aimed at attitude adjustment towards scientific curiosity.

However, let me tell you a highly abridged story. I onced contacted an engineer for a manufacturing task. He listened intently and said he could not see how it could be done but if I did not mind wasting my money spend in building the piecses he was curious enough to try various things. I agreed and after many failures he came up with an approach. When I later asked him why he bothered, he simply smiled and said to me "I am an engineer", and what I wanted challenged his creativity.

So please allow yourself to be challenged and show the "alleged invention" performs in a manner not consistent with claim. Or does it?

Hey that guy in Queensland is absolutely welcome to come to my house in the USA and disconnect me from the mains temporarily and run my house free of charge. If you are implying I should drop my business and travel halfway across the world to look at a scam, then no thank you.

If this guy lived next door to me then, like an earlier poster said, I would look to see if he was still hooked up to the mains and paying his light bill. If he is, end of story. If he is disconnected, out comes my wallet and I stand in line to invest and/or buy one.

Good attitude. May be now you may want to react to him somewhat with scientific curiosity.

TVP45:

EditorGBanalysts will probably prefer to speak for themself, but I see it as probably a difference of approach.

The comment "Speaking and writing conclusively without allowing oneself the full exposure to an issue is just a demo of lack of scientific curiosity" is another way of saying "consider the controversy."

Considering the controversy raises the standing of the quack, while disrespecting the validity of the science. The controversy can only be raised in light of conflicting data (Anomaly, Kuhn chpt VI), none of which has been presented. In courts of law, rules of evidence are the basis for procedure. The appeal to consider "full exposure to an issue" is an effort to abort the procedural edits and rules of scientific method, which is well established as a way of knowing. In the absence of anomalous data, there is no evidence, and thus no controversy to consider.

Respect for the outsider's unsupported claims seems to be this age's orthodoxy. For no apparent reason it values "Diversity of opinion" over "Respected standing for established science." It' s base is in political correctness (equal opportunity for crackpots), and the feel good humanities, over an earned respect for the established Science. Polite coexistence and consensus are today preferred over What Kuhn described as : "Crisis is the essential tension implicit in scientific research".Kuhn,Chpt VII in which there are valid and invalid ideas.

For these new claims to "seed" a paradigm shift , they have to present incontrovertible evidence of A) Failure of existing rules B) observed discrepancies between theory and fact. Kuhn, Chpt VII

Without evidence of these (points A and B above), there is no scientific controversy to consider, only disbelievers opinions diverting energies and resources by their unsubstantiated competing non data supported claims.

Thomas Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083 doesn't seem to have had a wide audience among the over unity crowd. Although perhaps a few see themselves as the heroes of chapter six therein.

Kuhn is worth the read.

milo

Milo,

We are back to my very first posting on this subject.

Now an inventor may not want to disclose his invention without proper protection which he/she can not get because he/she is branded a quack right of the bat.

The people - such as you - who could collaborate [and I do mean to use the word collaborate: in the context of "with the Patents Office"] to help provide the answer conclusively already think that there is no need for the collaboration, because there is no "anomaly" to begin with, so I ask again by what approach is an inventor of a new "over-unity" device [who is not a researcher in a Lycium] to introduce his device to the world? Also for the benefit of Del I have repeated the term "new" as an adjective for "over-unity" device to mean that while "over-unity" has developed a foul odour about it in the past, "over-unity" devices allegedly developed in the present by the believers are in fact new relative to the past that is.

Milo,

There is nothing you have listed that i am not already familiar with as an entrepreneur myself.

Yet your list-item # 5 is what I find pertinent to this discourse, and where I have been engaging you in this discourse: Why do you not think that you are qualified to be that "trusted person (In good health and sound mind don't want your witness to die on you...) to corroborate your work. a letter is best....."

This is my point all along: if you would not dismiss these "alleged quacks" right of the bat, then may be you can collaborate with the Patent Office in showing - through the patent issuance - to the world that such device is functional.

Thanks.

My list was given based on your request. it was given based on your "postulate" that the working device exists.

In the absence of data showing that, there is no point in going forward.

As your signature teaches why give a man a fish? until they prove they have something to protect, why go into their delusion?

If you get a spare moment, do try out the Kuhn book, You are careful enough in your thinking to appreciate it.

Best regards

milo

Milo,

Thank you too.

That was rather my bad habit of giving everyone the 'benefit of the doubt" until proven otherwise, in that sense it was really not a postulate.

Also thank you, I shall look into the book by Kuhn.

Milo,

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply. You're right in that it does seem to be a difference of approach. And, as Henry Fonda said in Slim, "That's what the matter is."

We live in a time and place when the "cult of the amateur" is in full flower. Science has been so belittled and denigrated that we can have the teaching of evolution being banned in schools (Note I didn't say Darwinism, I said evolution). During the recent election campaign, we even saw a Zeiss star projector being touted as a waste of money.

One of the tactics of those who attack science is to make an outlandish claim and then say "Prove me wrong!" Well, my position is that no, I don't have even the slightest burden of proof. The person making the outlandish claim has 100% of the burden.

Now, once they submit some data, I do have the obligation to consider the data. If the data looks valid, then I have the further obligation to consider the controversy.

Let me give you an example. As part of my culture, I believe that warts can be removed by a "seventh son of a seventh son". However, I am aware that my belief is a strange one, well outside the scientific norm, and I would never advise you that it is factual. If, however, I had data from a double-blind study conducted by an independent lab, I might ask you to look at the data and see what you think. And, I would be prepared for you to say that viruses do seem to respond to psychosomatic suggestion. And, in the meantime, I would continue using Compound W (it's a lot cheaper and works just as well).

Thanks for the reference to Kuhn.

Very well then, perhaps you should simply ask for the data under a condition that simultaneously offers inventor protection, given that such "derided inventors" are not attached to Lycia (or Lyciums - if you prefer). To do otherwise will always defeat the purpose, and genuine scientific curiosity therefore should motivate you to do that.

If I ask for only data, and not details, the inventor is protected. That is, I can ask him for a wattmeter outputs in the form of a calibrated time plot and I can ask him for full details of the energy input since that is almost surely not covered by any present or future patent. So, I'm quite willing to not compromise his secrecy. The question, however, that arises is this: if he has reduced his idea to practice, why not obtain a patent and protect it?

Talking about over the unity generator. In an enclosed system, the thermodynamics laws tell about the impossibility of such device. By the way, a physics law, as I was told in school, is just the enouncement of an existing situation, derived through observations (sometimes, through pure deduction or calculation).

I am not carrying a partisan controversy (I am afraid that the dean of my college would haunt me to return my degree), just trying to explain how a concept like "over unity generator" could be used by some people. And, as a joke, an epochal invention appears when everybody knows that something cannot be done, but there is this guy, who doesn't know what everybody else does, and INVENTS IT.

Revenons a nos moutons, what if, for a certain configuration, device etc, there is something, bringing the extra energy that creates the appearance of an "over unity device"?

I am not very confident that the physics has explained our world completely so, there is plenty of room for "twilight" phenomena.

Thank you my friend.

This is just the very reason why I have spent today entreating everybody here not to simply dismiss the "over-unity" believers but rather to work with them and determine if in fact there is progress being made.

After all, who knows when something may just come about even if incrementally.

me thinks you mix up curiosity and a replay of an old sci-fi movie. The flux capacitor is also a curiousity, but, I'll pass on believing in it too.

Your Mightyness!

That is the beauty of individuality, don't you agree? I mean that there comes a time when you can suspend your curiosity on a subject, and that is quite alright. On the other hand, I never do, for various reasons including the fact that Fermat's Last Theorem (?) only took hundred years before the mathematicians produced a proof after innumerable failures; Experimental verification of Einstein's Gravitational Lens Theory faced many failures before it was verified, though the initial proof by Einstein himself was purely abstract.

BTW, methinks we should always be circumspect.

"And, as a joke, an epochal invention appears when everybody knows that something cannot be done, but there is this guy, who doesn't know what everybody else does, and INVENTS IT."

But, there's the rub. So far as I know, this has never happened, not even once.

As far as physics, I think the consensus is that the very small, very fast and the very large, very slow remain in question, but ordinary phenomena are fairly well known. I don't mean to suggest that everything is settled, but the big questions of ordinary scale seem to be.

As far as physics, I think the consensus is that the very small, very fast and the very large, very slow remain in question, but ordinary phenomena are fairly well known. I don't mean to suggest that everything is settled, but the big questions of ordinary scale seem to be.

You are right, they have reached this consensus at the end of XIX-th century (or was it the mid century?)

Notice my modifier "...of ordinary scale..."?

I'm not saying we're not gonna have huge breakthroughs in something like zero point energy, for example, or perhaps in gravity superposition. Those are still open.

Indel's comment is humorous, but misleading to people prone to believe in something-for-nothing science. The history of science (true science) is one of constantly refined models that provide closer and closer approximations of reality. By which I mean model-based predictions approximate ever closer to measured data. So for instance Einstein's theory of general relativity agrees better with measured data for the very fast, very massive, etc., but Einstein's complex model reduces neatly to Newtonian physics in the case of ordinary circumstances. For instance, we sent men to the moon and returned them safely to earth based solely on three hundred year old Newtonian mechanics, without any need for relativistic effects, even though the space shot involved the fastest velocities at which men have ever traveled.

Certainly there have been blockbuster shifts in our understanding of how things work. Max Planck's quantization of energy (E = hv) revolutionized our understanding of much of the universe, but it came from a very disturbing problem of which classical physics was well aware, but could not solve (the problem of blackbody radiation).

In the case of the something-for-nothing folks, conservation of energy is well understood, universally accepted and there are no issues being investigated because of disagreements between models and measurements.

The something-for-nothing folks can postulate an "ether" from which an unknown energy source may be tapped, but that is new science, and it is once again incumbent upon them to enlighten the rest of us as to its existence and utility. It is not up to us to prove that a hypothetical construct does not exist.

TVP45,

This is absolutely the best Takeaway I have gotten off this CR4 FORUM to date!

I have said that to teach adults successfully, you have to answer why... Your lead has set me off on a journey of discovery. THANKS!

milo

Milo,

I have often watched the of-the-cuff dismissals of the over-unity researchers on this forum, and such dismissals seem to give them the feeling of being mistreated, however, by this thread they will have been given structured rational dismissal, and therefore all such researchers who read this thread now know the structure of the presentation they must make to to be taken seriously the next time they make an assertion of their devices; further we do not have to seem unkind, because all that each or any one of us may do is simply reassert the structured rational dismissal again as the challenge to them.

Waro or any one of his clique may never come back here again to this thread and may be one would, but in the event that the former occurs then this thread will fade into the past and be terminated ultimately.

Yet one thing is certain, we have collectively and respectfully given Waro and his fellow over-unity researchers the opportunity to defend the device of Waro and they have failed to do so; and for that I see us as bigger for it.

Well put.

keep selling you freebie energy stuff on your website and leave science to the professionals. The Bosch reactor requires 200,000 joules/gm of C of energy to get started and the is exothermic in the order of magnitude of 2300 joiules per gram of C released. Yet another attemp for over unity crap.

Eloquent words do not prove science, let the numbers speak for themselves.