Seeking funding for potential over unity device.

[Omnibus]

If my comment was incoherent to you, you have a problem.

You are incompetent and you should curb your comments because nonsense such as yours only clogs the discussions and disrupts them.

[Omnibus]

haha same goes for you !

Funding isn't going to help you guy's you need something else.

What, for instance?

[bolt]

Do you know how many patents there are on free energy devices the last 100 years most of which have expired? ... Thousands and thousands. Quite a few may have worked but never got funding. The best ones of course are locked up under national security.

1970's - 90's expensive magnet/pulsed motors producing OU and or looped are two for a penny. Ask Joe Newman, EVgray etc they tried hard enough even got scientific people to prove it.  Most generators will cost to crank out 5kw -10kw at least $50-100k to build with special machine parts in today's market. No one gave a crap then despite hundreds of public viewings all over the US and elsewhere and no one gives a crap now.  Back then quite a lot of projects DID get massive funding $100 mio there $50 mio there but most of it wasted and nothing to show for it. Not for the technology but due to intense greed they all spent like it was lotto cash.

You need a solid state device cheap using off the shelf parts otherwise don't bother. Then you need to open source it and make it widely available till the hundred monkey syndrome kicks in. Ismael is the latest with his electric car COP 2.7 out of his MEG and DOE certified for 134% on the dyno for transmission but i see no sign of any one putting in bids in unless they want to take full control of the technology and suppress it.

So you open source it like Linux. Everyone benefits and improves the technology. You get contracts to make specials for people that need something unique or don't have the time, skills to make it but have money and can SEE it actually works as others are using it. You starts small make one sell it. Buy parts for 2 make them sell em make 4 etc within a few weeks you got so much work and so much money you can never cope in a lifetime.

[Goat]

@ Bolt

I completely agree with you about open source, it's the only way, otherwise the investor gets the upper hand and we'll never see it commercially available.

There are lots more OU claims and devices coming out lately so it's all a matter of time before one of the devices comes with enough information to validate it in a cheap method for all to replicate easily using off the shelf parts.

BTW: The Rosemary Ainslie circuit looks easy enough to put in a kit form less batteries, is there enough people willing to buy the kit to try it?  I don't know but I know I would be willing to try it if the price was right.

@ questioneverything

Do you have the above device that's proven OU and easily replicable?

If so show us how to do it and we'll make you famous and get you paid what you deserve in a open source licensing model   I'm sure everyone would agree to do that, show us how to achieve OU and we'll compensate you once we can build one and make it work as an OU device.

Regards,
Paul

[Omnibus]

Problem is, none of these devices you mention above actually work as OU. Most of these are only used as ways to milk gullible investors. The OU field is overwhelmed with such bogus claims, including the latest ones. That's the tragedy and that stands in the way of the real progress and puts a bad name on the entire field. OU is a scientific issue, not an issue of engineering and marketing. There are certain ways of proving the reality of a scientific claim that have been established for centuries and these are legitimate and good, proper ways. Unfortunately, many of those interested in OU ignore them and the use of little terms such as 'open source' or 'COP' immediately gives away that they are not serious researchers but are after goals which lie outside of science. I've said it more than once and I'll repeat it now, there's no private money, no matter how much of it, which can compete with the money and infrastructure of Academia. Unless we (those interested in promoting OU as a legitimate area of study) find ways to make breakthrough into Academia and legitimize OU as mainstream, all these efforts we're applying are doomed. To do that, first we should be very clear what's legitimate, real OU and what are just games and finagling let alone sheer aggressive incompetence. I'm afraid overwhelmingly the OU claims fall in the latter category be it because, as I already said, of lack of competence or due to outright dishonesty (there's enough dishonesty in the mainstream, to add more to it from the outside). Then, once clear cut OU effects are established Academia has to be made to listen. How is this to be achieved is a very difficult question. Academia is more than reluctant to listen to OU claims. It is repulsive and abhorrent to those in Academia to even hear the mentioning of OU but that's because they are conditioned and systematically brainwashed to think so. I myself, being a classically educated scientist, thought so some years ago and used to brush off outright any mention of CoE violation and the like so I know the feeling. That has to change but it cannot change through behavior displayed by some well known claimants (who themselves are obviously unsure of their own claims or not qualified enough to defend them and that's the underlying reason to deny scrutiny; aside from bogus dreams of riches that will never come true).