More energy out than in.

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Color me skeptical.

It's not like this is anything new. It's been going on for centuries...
I know......and it's called fraud. I have no intentions of making a single penny or getting a single patent.......I only want to improve society. You do the math I provided and you will see that it works. If you hold 2 magnets in your hands and trace them through the path created by this setup, you will also feel that it works.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
I know......and it's called fraud.
In most of the cases those people really believed they had found something, just like you do.
I have no intentions of making a single penny or getting a single patent.......
That makes absolutely no difference with respect to the solidity of your "discovery".
I only want to improve society.
Well, isn't that cute! Don't we all? Mother Theresa, Hitler, Stalin, Martin Luther King, the Spanish Inquisition, Mao Zedong, President Bush, my grandmother, they all wanted to improve society. Some did better than others though. On the whole good intentions have a bad historical record. If I need kidney surgery I'd rather trust an expert who is a greedy S.O.B. than a quack who says he has the best intentions.
You do the math I provided and you will see that it works.
No, I'm not doing any math. Whether I find the error or not is irrelevant, it is there. I also can't explain how Penn & Teller do their magic tricks but one thing I know for sure is that they do not have supernatural powers.
If you hold 2 magnets in your hands and trace them through the path created by this setup, you will also feel that it works.
My feelings count for nothing but I'll tell you what my feelings are: My feeling is that you are mistaken. My feeling is that it is more probable that the world will end next week than you having really discovered an over unity machine.

Let me ask you something. How do you explain that something so obvious, so easy, has been overlooked by hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists and engineers? What are your credentials? Do you have a solid scientific education in this field? A PhD or doctorate maybe? Have you presented this to scientists, engineers, universities and others capable of judging it on its merits? If not, why not? If so, what did they say?
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
there is definitely something that we're overlooking while the magnets cross and the opposition to motion due to attractive & repulsive forces.
right now it is hard to imagine it will require to dig a little deeper into the theories.
has this m/c of yours been fabricated? and did it produce any power? did it power a load?
and yup two reasons most ppl will find hard to believe in this m/c is that they have already learned a lot to know that perpetual motion m/c do not exist.
ppl like tesla have existed who have made weird turbines like tesla turbines then why is it that this concept was left untouched?
however if the answer to my above questions in the affirmative then i do think you have a good shot at nobel prize (i m serious).
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
In most of the cases those people really believed they had found something, just like you do. That makes absolutely no difference with respect to the solidity of your "discovery". Well, isn't that cute! Don't we all? Mother Theresa, Hitler, Stalin, Martin Luther King, the Spanish Inquisition, Mao Zedong, President Bush, my grandmother, they all wanted to improve society. Some did better than others though. On the whole good intentions have a bad historical record. If I need kidney surgery I'd rather trust an expert who is a greedy S.O.B. than a quack who says he has the best intentions. No, I'm not doing any math. Whether I find the error or not is irrelevant, it is there. I also can't explain how Penn & Teller do their magic tricks but one thing I know for sure is that they do not have supernatural powers. My feelings count for nothing but I'll tell you what my feelings are: My feeling is that you are mistaken. My feeling is that it is more probable that the world will end next week than you having really discovered an over unity machine.

Let me ask you something. How do you explain that something so obvious, so easy, has been overlooked by hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists and engineers? What are your credentials? Do you have a solid scientific education in this field? A PhD or doctorate maybe? Have you presented this to scientists, engineers, universities and others capable of judging it on its merits? If not, why not? If so, what did they say?
Epitome of a paradigm servant.......
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
there is definitely something that we're overlooking while the magnets cross and the opposition to motion due to attractive & repulsive forces.
right now it is hard to imagine it will require to dig a little deeper into the theories.
has this m/c of yours been fabricated? and did it produce any power? did it power a load?
and yup two reasons most ppl will find hard to believe in this m/c is that they have already learned a lot to know that perpetual motion m/c do not exist.
ppl like tesla have existed who have made weird turbines like tesla turbines then why is it that this concept was left untouched?
however if the answer to my above questions in the affirmative then i do think you have a good shot at nobel prize (i m serious).
I'm not sure what m/c stands for but I did have a hand-sized prototype that operated with no load for almost a half hour before the superglue gave out and most of the magnets came together rather quickly producing a bunch of tiny shrapnel. I have been using the ones that "survived" for refridgerator magnets. Just the fact that it accelerated and came up to a high speed with the presence of air and mechanical friction was "proof" enough for me to invest a couple thousand dollars on a larger one when I really don't have a couple thousand to just throw away. Nothing ever exists while there are ignorant and stubborn people like GS3 (below) acting the way they do to try and stop things before they ever get a chance to start. All it takes is a few people that are quick to fire off their mouthes but extremely reluctant to do any work.........that and large industries, like oil, that have billions to lose by such a "preposterous" thing. Any nobel prize should go to someone that develops a solid-state device that doesn't have moving parts so it won't require maintenance upkeep, especially for satellites and deep-space craft that cannot be worked on.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
Nothing ever exists while there are ignorant and stubborn people like GS3 (below) acting the way they do to try and stop things before they ever get a chance to start.
Tell you what. Let's avoid name calling and personal insults. OK?

As for me stopping you from anything that's laughable... unless I have supernatural powers of which I am not aware of.
All it takes is a few people that are quick to fire off their mouthes but extremely reluctant to do any work.........that and large industries, like oil, that have billions to lose by such a "preposterous" thing.
Can you explain how exactly a few people who fire off their "mouthes" and the large industries are keeping you from developing your invention? Please do answer the questions being put to you.
Posted previously by GS3 (that is to say by me)

How do you explain that something so obvious, so easy, has been overlooked by hundreds of thousands if not millions of scientists and engineers? What are your credentials? Do you have a solid scientific education in this field? A PhD or doctorate maybe? Have you presented this to scientists, engineers, universities and others capable of judging it on its merits? If not, why not? If so, what did they say?
Can you please answer these questions? Do you really mean to say that there is a world-wide conspiracy to stop inventions like yours? All the world, including all western governments and corporations plus its competitors like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, all university professors, scientists and engineers world wide have come to the agreement to prevent development of any revolutionary discovery like yours? Wow! Divided as the world is in everything they are all united against your invention? You really think that? There is cut-throat competition among governments and companies and they are working hard to gain advantage but they have all united against your invention? Do you *really* believe this? Does it make sense to you?

Please answer these questions and abstain from insults and personal attacks.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Tell you what. Let's avoid name calling and personal insults. OK?

As for me stopping you from anything that's laughable... unless I have supernatural powers of which I am not aware of. Can you explain how exactly a few people who fire off their "mouthes" and the large industries are keeping you from developing your invention? Please do answer the questions being put to you. Can you please answer these questions? Do you really mean to say that there is a world-wide conspiracy to stop inventions like yours? All the world, including all western governments and corporations plus its competitors like China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, all university professors, scientists and engineers world wide have come to the agreement to prevent development of any revolutionary discovery like yours? Wow! Divided as the world is in everything they are all united against your invention? You really think that? There is cut-throat competition among governments and companies and they are working hard to gain advantage but they have all united against your invention? Do you *really* believe this? Does it make sense to you?

Please answer these questions and abstain from insults and personal attacks.
Does God exist...........hmm.........over 5 Billion people worldwide seem to think so, some of which will even give their life for it, without a single shred of proof anywhere on the planet.

I don't answer questions when it will just fall on deaf ears.
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
Mr. GS3 like me has reasons for his doubts.
yet i personally m not able to point out any flaws in the theory( wont be unless i actually start working on a similar thing myself) and since u say that the prototype did work.
tell me is it possible to do the same with some excitation system i;e use electromagnets instead of magnets.
if everything is going right i wonder if there is some sort of energy that is being provided by the magnet (wild theory) which wud mean that magnet wont last (that is why i wanted it tested with electromagnets). again maybe u shud have connected a substantial load to it electrical or mech.
btw there are things like BEV (battery electric vehicles) whose development has been hampered because of some international politics.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Mr. GS3 like me has reasons for his doubts.
yet i personally m not able to point out any flaws in the theory( wont be unless i actually start working on a similar thing myself) and since u say that the prototype did work.
tell me is it possible to do the same with some excitation system i;e use electromagnets instead of magnets.
if everything is going right i wonder if there is some sort of energy that is being provided by the magnet (wild theory) which wud mean that magnet wont last (that is why i wanted it tested with electromagnets). again maybe u shud have connected a substantial load to it electrical or mech.
btw there are things like BEV (battery electric vehicles) whose development has been hampered because of some international politics.
I have many doubts about anything that implies overunity but I NEVER bring any of them up without a logical premise to address a specific piece of the puzzle which seems to not make logical sense.

If excitation was used, I am almost certain that the energy in would be much greater than the energy out. Besides, the energy required to pass through a coil of wire as small as the magnets I am using to produce an N50 grade field equivalent would most likely vaporize the wires into a plasma ball the instant it turned on. I was wondering if the magnets would somehow be affected by continuous operation since energy has to be coming from somewhere. Under normal circumstances, Nd-Fe-B magnets will retain most of their field strength for decades if they are kept below the critical temperature. I just hope they don't degrade somehow at the atomic level due to energy leaving but not being able to return in the same form as how it left. I'll leave that up to the physicists and mathematicians of the world to figure out. I just know it works so I am building a bigger one that won't fall apart.........the first one I built was made with gears and really crappy bearings from W.M. Berg, Nd-Fe-B magnets from Edmund Scientific when they first became public (probably N18 or N20 grade), washers from a toilet repair kit, and super glue. If that works..........just about anything should work better!:)
 

FreeFreak

Joined Nov 4, 2007
2
First - I must declare that I am a regular poster here, and I have created this logon so that my identity is not know.. I do not like this, but have a contract which I would jepordise if I posted what I am abot to, and this could easily be traced back to my company.. As my 'real' profile contains a link to my company website, I mst do this .. Sorry!

I spent a year (paid for by an individual who wanted to "buy a lottery ticket" into this "free energy" field, and see if there was anything in it - I advised him strongly that there were better "tickets" on sale!) - I built + tested dozens of devices, and had a large budget to hire test equipment etc, particularly to get TRUE evaluation of Power in -> Power out.

I examined the theory, evaluated the devices, and (in the main) concluded that there is a concoction of fraud, ignorance and "Compulsive obsessive psychological disorder" driving most of this field.

Fraud: "Dr" Bearden is probably the biggest name in this field. His "Doctorate" is from an on-line "degree mill" which is presently under fraud investigation. Dr Bearden also has the status of membership of an institute of Aclaimed American Scientists.. Except that He started and runs that "institute", and last time I looked, only He and Floyd Sweet were "Aclaimed".

Incompetence: The field is loaded with it - "Conditioned loads" for example - These ">1 devices" often only "work" into loads which are "Conditioned by time" - "Rusty Junk-yard resistors" work best.. No surprise, really, as the value of the resistance being used to calculate output power is not gauranteed - particularly with fast high voltage transients often generated by these the "free energy" devices.

Biased Observations: There have been some extremely interesting and promising "experiments" - but, alas, rather than systematic objective scientific observation and analysis, these have been viewed and interpreted within the framework of the observers (often nonsensical) ideas..

To me, the greatest example of this was with Floyd Sweet's "VTA" -(what follows has not been independently verified, and may be a scam - but I think there is a chance it is true) - Floyd was a magnet technician who developed a device that provided power to a REAL load (Light bulbs) without an input source.. The device consisted of coils and conditioned magnets.. When power was being drawn (light bulbs illuminating) the device [ which Bearden named the VTA- "Vaccum Triode Amplifier" I think it stood for, because Bearden believed the energy was being 'sucked' from the "vaccum" or the "Dirac sea" ? - I may have got some words wrong ] the devise cooled down - got so cold, in fact, that Floyd got seriously 'burnt' by it when he touched it.

Capturing thermal energy and converting it to electrical energy would be one of the greatest inventions ever.. Theoretically it should be possible to exctract energy from atomic / molecular movement .. The process of extracting this energy would attenuate the amplitude of this movement, causing cooling.. This would allow heat to be converted to electrical energy without requiring a thermal gradient (as is required by Seebeck devices).

Floyd apparently had no idea about wherethe energy he was getting was coming from, and somehow was put in contact with Bearden, who then monopolsed the research, bent it to fit his theories, never looked at the obvious, and possibly lost (Floyd is now dead, and his equipment apparently no longer functional) the greatest breakthrough in energy harnassing.

I am no luddite - I do not have absolute faith in the 'laws' of physics.. My expierience examining "free energy" led me to realise that there are a lot more questions over BASIC physics (Particularly with regard to magnetism and gravity) than I had expected..

BUT - The SLOPPY INCOMPETENT manner in which "free energy" research is conducted make 99.9% of everything coming out of this field completely laughable (if it wasnt so sad).
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
I just love it when I see plasma balls mixed with Nd-Fe-B magnets and toilet repair kit washers. Right there are all the signs of a revolutionary discovery which will upset the field of physics and change our way of life.

Anyone who believes that a lone inventor, without a solid education in the field, has any chance of discovering anything of any consequence is hugely mistaken. Anyone without a solid education who believes he has discovered something like a over unity machine is deluded.

The proof is in the pudding. If it is a valid discovery it will stand up to rigorous analysis and criticism by the scientific community. To pretend that the entire world needs to abandon centuries of scientific knowledge and accept an unproved, undemonstrated, unexplained and unclear proposal presented on a web site by an anonymous person with no credentials of any kind is just nuts.

I am very skeptical of inventions presented anonymously on Internet forums by people who hardly have a grasp on basic concepts of science and who can hardly spell or write coherently. I have a hard time taking seriously anyone who does not bother using correct capitalization, spelling and punctuation. Really, if you want to be taken seriously the first thing you need to do is present your ideas in a more conventional way.

You have a discovery which no one of any consequence is willing to endorse? That, right there, should tell you something.

Again, why is it that it is always people without a solid education in this field who come up with these inventions? How can such a simple thing have eluded hundreds of thousands of scientists and enginneers world-wide? The Soviets, the Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans have all been capable of putting stuff in orbit but have all failed to find out such a simple thing? They are all spendings millions investigating into the most complex fields of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. and they have overlooked something which can be explained on the back of an envelope? What are the chances of that?

I need to think about this more. . . . Oh, wait. No I don't. :D
 

FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
It could, of course, be argued that the process of formal scientific education acts to "close the mind" and that discoveries are therefore more likely from those without the "blinkers".. I dont fully buy this argument, but I think there may be a grain of truth in it.
More important than qualifications or even education, I believe, is personal integrity and the willingness to critically evaluate ones ideas.. Ego is the biggest obsticle to this.. And this is where (I believe) the greatest problems arise for both 'scientists' and 'heretics'.. BOTH should be spending their time trying to UNDERMINE their hypotheses.. they should be ACTIVELY seeking FLAWS in their arguments, and only after having exhausted every means they can think of, and the hypothesis still stands, should they present their finding for others to rip to shreds!

But it doesnt seem to work that way anymore.. and this results in such a quantity of garbage being presented, that going through the garbage to find something which may be valid would be a full time job for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of competent persons..

Test it mentally, if at all possible, test it physically - be systematic and comprehensive - take time (perhaps years) to fully comprehend every aspect of science related to your task.. Document every step, every result, and put every detail in the documentation.. THEN, if it still "stands up", present it for review as a "look for faults / errors in this idea" not as a "This is what the world has been waiting for".

Finally - Watch yourself.. The whole area of invention is littered with human debris - there are classes of mental illness which are almost exclusively present with "inventors".. I have dealt with a couple of tragic cases where individuals have gone through the whole international patent process, spent their lifes savings - hundreds of thousands of pounds - been granted a patent, but the patent is not worth the paper it is printed on, because the invention is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic physics and does not and cannot work.

OCD is one of the most difficult disorders to cure - and MANY "inventors" suffer from this disease.
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
anyone who does not bother using correct capitalization, spelling and punctuation
who can hardly spell or write coherently
that would be me. ;)
personally i am against that opinion.
if that was the case Shakespeare should be way more intelligent than Einstien or at least
his theories would have been more 'palatable' .

I have studied power plants for past few years and i know how hard it is to even make a heat engine having a efficiency more than 50 %. I have a fair understanding of thermodynamics that is one reason why i will never accept the concept of a 'overunity' machine.
But there must be some concept that must be worth taking a look into.
Brilliance is not something which comes from education. education only gives it a direction.
Gravity wasn't discovered by looking into a book.
I personally do not think there will be an avatar/reincarnation of a scientist to show us the path it is always the combined effort of great minds that leads to a great invention.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
It could, of course, be argued that the process of formal scientific education acts to "close the mind" and that discoveries are therefore more likely from those without the "blinkers.
I have heard this argument many times but I do not buy it for the simple reason that historically those with little or no scientific training have brought us close to nothing while it has been those with a solid scientific foundation who have brought us the scientific and technological advance which we enjoy today. Anyone without a solid foundation who believes he has found a simple solution to a complex problem is most surely just plain not understanding the problem or the solution.

Even the primitive Greeks had to study a lot to arrive at their geometry discoveries. Thomas Edison famously said "Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. I never did anything worth doing by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by accident. They came by work." He was a genius but he was building on what others had done before him.

To say the entire, world-wide, academic and scientific community is dead set against a new idea just because they are narrow minded and want to preserve the status quo is just nuts. To say no one wants to put money into this because they want to preserve the status quo is double nuts.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
Gravity wasn't discovered by looking into a book.
You are mistaken. It certainly was not discovered by some yahoo with no contemporary scientific training. Gravity was discovered by the most notable scientists of their time after much thought and study.
Wikipedia

Modern work on gravitational theory began with the work of Galileo Galilei in the late 16th century and early 17th century. In his famous (though probably apocryphal) experiment dropping balls from the Tower of Pisa, and later with careful measurements of balls rolling down inclines, Galileo showed that gravitation accelerates all objects at the same rate. This was a major departure from Aristotle's belief that heavier objects are accelerated faster. (Galileo correctly postulated air resistance as the reason that lighter objects may fall more slowly in an atmosphere.) Galileo's work set the stage for the formulation of Newton's theory of gravity.

In 1687, English mathematician Sir Isaac Newton published Principia, which hypothesizes the inverse-square law of universal gravitation. In his own words, “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must be reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve; and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly.”
After much work and study they presented their theories to the contemporary scientific communities for scrutiny and those theories were tested and found sound.

Newton spent a lifetime studying AND he was a genius. Those who come up with overunity machines in a forum like this meet neither of those conditions.
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
i somehow did not convey my meaning correctly,
what i meant was laws of physics are formulated based on what occurs.
events do not occur based on laws written in books.
whatever we have learned till now is a simple collection of observations and theories based on them over the centuries.
and books are a mere collection of these observations.
the knowledge of these observations help in reasoning but it does not give or take away the ability of a person to observe.
sure energy + mass cannot be made nor destroyed but there might still be efficient ways to harness energy. A theory should not be dismissed just because it escaped others.
i repeat i am completely against the free energy brigade but if a machine happens to run powering a load there is something that is providing it energy and its definitely a worth taking a look into.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
if a machine happens to run powering a load there is something that is providing it energy and its definitely a worth taking a look into.
Yup. Something is providing it energy. At this point though we have a machine that is not running and the inventor is not willing to let the scientific community look into it.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Yup. Something is providing it energy. At this point though we have a machine that is not running and the inventor is not willing to let the scientific community look into it.
You obviously haven't been looking at the picture attachments. As far as not willing.......am I supposed to buy a plane ticket and fly it out to your house for what I would imagine would only turn into your own personal amusement anyways?

Come on.....this is a forum, not the MCP in Tron!
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
the question is if someone has found something interesting is there a place his queries can be heard of and the matter be taken a look into.
personally i think most of the members here might be able to point out something but they will have to go out of the way to have a look.
i m sure centuries old theories are strong enough to stand up and explain this phenomenon.

Mr. Mike i think you should really try to forward this concept at the right place(anybody having a idea as to where?) and yes do post the result of the analysis of the same.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
the question is if someone has found something interesting is there a place his queries can be heard of and the matter be taken a look into.
personally i think most of the members here might be able to point out something but they will have to go out of the way to have a look.
i m sure centuries old theories are strong enough to stand up and explain this phenomenon.

Mr. Mike i think you should really try to forward this concept at the right place(anybody having a idea as to where?) and yes do post the result of the analysis of the same.
I would love to have a group of people with the proper credentials analyse this, once I have the second prototype built and running. Until then, I am stuck with 12-hour shifts at Intel and a daughter to take care of with no extra cash......at least not until I get my tax return. I really need to find a company that can puncture rectancle holes through 1/2 inch nylon at a reasonable price......that is what I truly NEED right now. Until that happens, or I find a way to do it myself, I wouldn't even feel comfortable sharing anything but what I have provided in this forum.........the design specifications and the mathematics that govern what the output SHOULD be based on the present physics of magnetism, torque, and the trigonometric relationships that they follow.
 
Top