Electric Motor Geenerator/alternator looped

[lumen]

Except that you *couldn't* set up a balance beam like that and if you could - you could easily extract energy from it.

Except if you didn't extract any energy from it, is it still an over unity device? You put the weights on the scale by hand, how can that be over unity?

So the question is why does it *appear* (to you anyway) as if you had and why is there no obvious way to exploit this?

There is an obvious way, you only think the weight problem works because you think you see the answer.  Just because you don't see the answer to this device you simply conclude it must not work, though it is working in a similar fashion.

A test usually involves a hypothesis and it's unclear what yours is and if these forces are "applied" what is applying them other than the battery?  Perhaps I miss the point of OU "research" but it's unclear how this is even a candidate for an OU device.  There is no explanation of what you are trying to falsify and the device's operation seems to be fully explained by "There is a battery attached to a motor".Dude.  You said: "then this in itself is proof that over unity exists in inertial mass and power could be extracted at no cost."

Are you saying this device is PROOF of OU or not?

I do consider it proof that over unity exists in inertial mass, but I never said it was an over unity device.
This was only a test of a possible OU principal. The results were as expected. I plan to move on and attempt to extract energy from the inertial mass principal.
Just give it a rest! If you don't understand what you have just seen, then simply look the other way and say it must not work.

[sarkeizen]

You put the weights on the scale by hand, how can that be over unity?

The reason for it to be OU would be because you would get more work out than you put in.  Putting a weight on a lever by hand is "putting something in".   It seems obvious, to me anyway that anything claiming to be OU would have to exhibit a behavior which requires greater energy than is claimed to have gone in.  If I could somehow place a 10Kg weight on a lever and get the equivalent force of putting 100Kg dropped from the same spot.  That would seem to qualify.

you only think the weight problem works because you think you see the answer.  Just because you don't see the answer to this device you simply conclude it must not work,

Wrong on so many levels it's almost like you're trying.  I don't think the "weight problem" works.  I don't think levers can be set up to gain OU.  However if you could place a 10Kg weight on a lever and produce, on the other side (or after going through several levers and weights) produce force equivalent to placing a 100Kg weight at the same height and dropping it.  I think that exploiting that would be conceptually obvious.

I do consider it proof that over unity exists in inertial mass, but I never said it was an over unity device. This was only a test of a possible OU principal.

I'm confused.  Is it a possible principle or a proved one?  How can something which produces no excess energy be a proved principle of OU?  Does OU mean something other than getting more energy out than you put in?  Does "proved" mean something other than "demonstrated in some way"?

Just give it a rest! If you don't understand what you have just seen, then simply look the other way and say it must not work.

Uh...no.  I'm saying I don't see how this test is indicative of anything to do with OU.  I think it's pretty minimal to require that a device claiming to prove a principle of overunity must produce more energy than is put in.

[lumen]

Whatever just take the sticks as they fall.

[sarkeizen]

Whatever just take the sticks as they fall.

Can you at least tell me where the extra energy is supposed to be coming from?

[mondrasek]

What are the odds?

I was at an Arby's in Greensburg, Indiana, yesterday, stopping for lunch while on my way to some business meetings near there.  They have a large spiral coin funnel thingy collecting money for charity.  I took a moment to read the label on the funnel and it was manufactured by Divnick International in Miamisburg, Ohio.  That was a shocker for me because that is the city where I work!  I looked up divnick.com and it links directly to the spiralwishingwells.com website.  Same company.  And only about 3 miles from where I am sitting right now.

M.