PLEASE READ THIS-MAJOR BREAK THRU FROM BILL MEHESS

[Mr. M]

And no jouleseeker it will not produce 1 watt yet. If this is the standard in which all these devices are going to be judged by then I guess I come up short. Frankly after 3 years on the site this is the first time I have heard of that. I know that this is one of the requirements for the OU prize and maybe that is what you meant

FFS... It doesn't matter if it produces 1 watt at all.

If you have invented/discovered something that produces any amount of energy from absolutely no consumable source and that energy cannot be attributed to any kind of external environmental facor then it doesn't matter.

I'm a coder by trade, science thus far presents a simple, self-proclaimed, indisputable equation of in>=out and the operators in use there are a stretch, at best, because of losses... If you've come up with an indisputable out>in then who cares about the amount of excess ?

If it's a scalable solution, it's out>in and and people aren't interested in seeing that and trying to figure out why it's happening then I cannot for the life of me figure out why... If you were in my country (UK) I would come and try and poke holes in your invention/discovery if I could if you could just (WTF?) demonstrate the simple principle of out>in.

Seriously, if you're talking verifiable out>in it is a world breaker.

[ramset]

AHHHH "W"[Wilby}
The fisher of Men......................

Musta been another lousy day of fishin out on the boat?

Chet

[chessnyt]

@RAMSET:
I used to quietly observe the work of IST back when he was making videos of a self running motor he claimed was legitimate; however, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now if it was.

Since IST’s self running motor claim, I haven’t continued to follow his work.  Is there something that has happened to IST that is possibly the result of exposure to high voltage fields (or over-exposure)? 

Chess

[e2matrix]

FFS... It doesn't matter if it produces 1 watt at all.

If you have invented/discovered something that produces any amount of energy from absolutely no consumable source and that energy cannot be attributed to any kind of external environmental facor then it doesn't matter.

I'm a coder by trade, science thus far presents a simple, self-proclaimed, indisputable equation of in>=out and the operators in use there are a stretch, at best, because of losses... If you've come up with an indisputable out>in then who cares about the amount of excess ?

If it's a scalable solution, it's out>in and and people aren't interested in seeing that and trying to figure out why it's happening then I cannot for the life of me figure out why... If you were in my country (UK) I would come and try and poke holes in your invention/discovery if I could if you could just (WTF?) demonstrate the simple principle of out>in.

Seriously, if you're talking verifiable out>in it is a world breaker.

Well that would be true as long as the cost (eventual cost in production mode) to produce useful power is = or < the cost of other clean energy sources.  However if it costs 20 times as much to get the same power as solar or wind than it becomes merely an interesting novelty or at best a subject for further study to see if it could become cost effective.  I did like Bill's analogy of the Wright brothers first flight.  It obviously started small but over the course of some years became huge.  We can hope for this with Bill's device too. 

[Mr. M]

Well that would be true as long as the cost (eventual cost in production mode) to produce useful power is = or < the cost of other clean energy sources.  However if it costs 20 times as much to get the same power as solar or wind than it becomes merely an interesting novelty or at best a subject for further study to see if it could become cost effective.  I did like Bill's analogy of the Wright brothers first flight.  It obviously started small but over the course of some years became huge.  We can hope for this with Bill's device too.

Well, I see your point about scalability and production costs but I think it's the underlying principle that's the world breaker, not the production of useful power.

Right now the scientific community has a mindset of "You can't get more out than you put in, that's the law, you can't prove otherwise and if you try I'll just mock you until you stop wasting everyone's time." but if that's not the case in this instance then this mindset has no alternative but to change to "It's possible to get more out than you put in."

It doesn't matter if you can power a house, a LED or simply show measurable output because it's coming from nothing and, right now, science on the whole says that cannot happen, ever... It validates this site and it also validates every attempt in history to achieve what science claims, somewhat dogmatically, to be impossible. 

That, to me at least, is the world breaker!