44 Times More Power Output than Input

[Dave45]

Roflmao you guys crack me up, if ya,ll aint geten paid your worken for free, Iv watched this board for years and as soon as something comes along you dismiss it out of hand and everyone agrees, then you all start patten each other on the back. lol

[truesearch]

Dave45:


I don't think that you should re-act too much to the detracting "noise" that is made here. I for one admire your research and willingness to share what you experience and find both here on overunity.com as well as at energeticforum.com.


There are many here that continue to experiment and research although sometimes there isn't anything to show for it. . . .


And many people here have been though the drama of MyLow, Inventacom, and others who proved out to be fakers. It's easy to get negative about ANY new ideas based on past history.


I sincerely wish you the best in your discoveries and would like to see you continue to share here, in spite of those that discount the efforts.


truesearch

[TinselKoala]

Smatter, Dave, did you swallow the 44-to-1 claim "out of hand" then? Or did you yourself perhaps think there was something just a little "too good to be true" there? Could YOU manage to self loop, say, a 10-to-1 system? How about a 20-to-1? There will be losses in your conversion from the generator output to the amplifier power source. OK, say 30-to-1. Sure, you could do that, probably.

But what _would_ you do? If you had a system that you _genuinely believed_ made 44 times the _electrical power output_ than the _electrical power input_ required to run it?

Would you write a second-place scholarly paper on the thing, or would you work your silly butt off to self loop the mother? I know what I'd do.

[Pirate88179]

But what _would_ you do? If you had a system that you _genuinely believed_ made 44 times the _electrical power output_ than the _electrical power input_ required to run it?

Would you write a second-place scholarly paper on the thing, or would you work your silly butt off to self loop the mother? I know what I'd do.

Exactly my point.  Nothing against the author of this paper but, it just does not make sense to me.  The paper was very well written but, I am missing some logic on this one.

Bill

[MileHigh]

If something actually output 44 times the input, chances are you would sense it, or feel it, take your pick.  When you applied power you would get the sense that the thing was amplifying the input power and it's response would be extremely vigorous, much much more vigorous than you would expect.  After all, the thing is allegedly acting like an electrical/mechanical power amplifier.  Applying battery power (or in this case feeding it power from an audio amplifier) would feel like you were adjusting a throttle.  See - no meters of any kind, just use your wits and your senses and your gut feel.  More importantly, what does your gut feel tell you when you don't sense anything special is going on?

I read the document addressing the issue of the measurement errors.  They look like serious "studious" guys with good intentions, but they are not connecting in their analysis on the correct level.  They state that they wanted the experiment to be reproducible using multimeters only, so there is your "gap" because you need a scope to look at the voltages and currents.

MileHigh