PLEASE READ THIS-MAJOR BREAK THRU FROM BILL MEHESS

[AquariuZ]

I cannot find a single valid reason for non-disclosure at this point.

Not one. (Monetary gains? Uncertainty about the device? Does not work quite yet?)

This approach is proven to fail and that´s a pity. If you have found a working passive generator do yourself and the world a favor and disclose what you have found as soon as possible without any drama nor mystery.

The world needs this now more than ever. And as I said before: you will get the honor, glory and be rich all at once. No need for a company, demo or anything else. A youtube instructional video with links to blueprints will do just fine.

[billmehess]

I cannot find a single valid reason for non-disclosure at this point.

Not one. (Monetary gains? Uncertainty about the device? Does not work quite yet?)

This approach is proven to fail and that´s a pity. If you have found a working passive generator do yourself and the world a favor and disclose what you have found as soon as possible without any drama nor mystery.

The world needs this now more than ever. And as I said before: you will get the honor, glory and be rich all at once. No need for a company, demo or anything else. A youtube instructional video with links to blueprints will do just fine.

Everything you are asking for will happen on Aug. 31 2011. Not 2 years from now or 2 months from now but 2 weeks from now.
Bill

[JouleSeeker]

OK --

I've checked my math and found it correct, to recap:

53 MICROwatts for Bill's 10-module system (connecting the 6-modules with the 4-modules). 

See below along with previous posts -- I have also checked from Bill's comments that the 280mV rise in the 4900 uF cap took one hour for "the two sets of modules together in series".

  But please correct me if my calculations are wrong, because, Bill and other friends,  this is a very VERY tiny effect:

1.  53 uW for 10 modules means about 5.3 microwatts/module (average)

2.  To reach just ONE watt would thus require about 189,000 modules.

3.  Earlier there was an indication that one could get the materials needed to build a module at a hardware store for less than $20.  OK, let's say just $10.

4.  Combining 2 and 3, we find that for ONE stinkin' watt it will cost roughly $1,890,000 -- nearly 2 million bucks ! 

5.  Let's take roughly 1 kW to run a house (a low estimate I believe) -- the cost for the modules (with present data) would be $1,890,000,000 or nearly $2 Billion bucks.  That's billion with a "B".
  I can't afford it.

5.  By comparison, solar panels are now available for about $1.50 per watt output, a factor of roughly a million CHEAPER than this device, at present.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.  OR -- I hope the device can be SCALED up in output POWER by a factor of roughly a million without raising the price... Is this possible?

Yes this would certainly help me , and yes I meant to say uf not mf. When I connect the two sets of modules together in series I get again around a 700 mv out put , but the total of the summation of all the individuals is around 1400 mv, voltage loss?
Anyway at 700 mv connected to the cap. and using a multimeter and starting with the cap reading 0.00 the cap will charge at the rate of about 180 mv/hour.
Now I have a way to increase the current output substanially to radically improve the amperage available.
Based on these figures could you calculate the power output.
The physical size of the 10 modules  is around 12" x 5" x 5" total for all 10. This can be scaled down greatly but that size is not really of concern to me at this point in the game.
Bill

I just re-read above the voltage on the cap after 1 hr is 280 mv not 180 mv.

[billmehess]

OK --

I've checked my math and found it correct, to recap:

53 MICROwatts for Bill's 10-module system (connecting the 6-modules with the 4-modules). 

See below along with previous posts -- I have also checked from Bill's comments that the 280mV rise in the 4900 uF cap took one hour for "the two sets of modules together in series".

  But please correct me if my calculations are wrong, because, Bill and other friends,  this is a very VERY tiny effect:

1.  53 uW for 10 modules means about 5.3 microwatts/module (average)

2.  To reach just ONE watt would thus require about 189,000 modules.

3.  Earlier there was an indication that one could get the materials needed to build a module at a hardware store for less than $20.  OK, let's say just $10.

4.  Combining 2 and 3, we find that for ONE stinkin' watt it will cost roughly $1,890,000 -- nearly 2 million bucks ! 

5.  Let's take roughly 1 kW to run a house (a low estimate I believe) -- the cost for the modules (with present data) would be $1,890,000,000 or nearly $2 Billion bucks.  That's billion with a "B".
  I can't afford it.

5.  By comparison, solar panels are now available for about $1.50 per watt output, a factor of roughly a million CHEAPER than this device, at present.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.  OR -- I hope the device can be SCALED up in output POWER by a factor of roughly a million without raising the price... Is this possible?

[billmehess]

OK --

I've checked my math and found it correct, to recap:

53 MICROwatts for Bill's 10-module system (connecting the 6-modules with the 4-modules). 

See below along with previous posts -- I have also checked from Bill's comments that the 280mV rise in the 4900 uF cap took one hour for "the two sets of modules together in series".

  But please correct me if my calculations are wrong, because, Bill and other friends,  this is a very VERY tiny effect:

1.  53 uW for 10 modules means about 5.3 microwatts/module (average)

2.  To reach just ONE watt would thus require about 189,000 modules.

3.  Earlier there was an indication that one could get the materials needed to build a module at a hardware store for less than $20.  OK, let's say just $10.

4.  Combining 2 and 3, we find that for ONE stinkin' watt it will cost roughly $1,890,000 -- nearly 2 million bucks ! 

5.  Let's take roughly 1 kW to run a house (a low estimate I believe) -- the cost for the modules (with present data) would be $1,890,000,000 or nearly $2 Billion bucks.  That's billion with a "B".
  I can't afford it.

5.  By comparison, solar panels are now available for about $1.50 per watt output, a factor of roughly a million CHEAPER than this device, at present.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  I hope I'm wrong.  OR -- I hope the device can be SCALED up in output POWER by a factor of roughly a million without raising the price... Is this possible?

My demo will show a device delivering considerbly more output, the figures I gave you is off my bench model with none of the upgrades I have yet to incorporate.
Bill