Auroratek self sustainable technologies Overunity to market in Arizona USA

[ramset]

One more comment to the overunity.com Vetting Crew
No ones sir name will EVER be attached or referenced  or even asked for here..[or elsewhere].
your test protocol should be self evident and speak for itself .


Dr.Jones has plenty of Known and lifelong associates  for this purpose.


here you are asked to play first string and step up to the plate.


thx
Chet

[e2matrix]

There are tests, and there are tests. And then there are interpretations of test data. Where is the _raw test data_ that was used to support the COP>1 claim made for that apparatus? I would like to review it.

Have you been following the QEG saga? James Robitaille and his stepdaughter have talked groups all over the world into spending thousands of dollars on a big heavy "generator" based on testing that was, by JR's own admission, not thorough and not indicating _actual_ overunity performance... even though the stepdaughter proceeded to ask for and get over a hundred thousand dollars in donations by claiming it was already proven to work. And the donations and "testing" are still rolling along, yet all of their _own_ published data indicates miserable efficiencies of under 50 percent. Yet they claimed as much as 33x OU. And the bottom is beginning to fall out of that story, as lots of people are beginning to realize they have been taken for a ride.

So yes, I believe that there are many people who would go "full on" with a PCB, based on faulty measurements or interpretations. After all, if you have the money, it's trivial to lay out a circuit in simulation, generate a PCB pattern and send it off for manufacturing. In a week you have your prototype boards in hand, and it sure beats sticking all those little parts into a breadboard and connecting them with clipleads. You will never attract the Big Fish with a breadboard!
Would I do it myself? Sure, I've been known to make simple PC boards to facilitate testing and demonstration of claimed OU devices.

In fact... there is a little sub-discussion happening right now in another thread about one of my devices that easily produces measurements that indicate ridiculously large "overunity" output values, and I did make a PCB for one model of that circuit. Would you like to invest in my system? Or would you like to learn just how and why the measurements aren't actually indicating any overunity performance? How is your attitude towards me different from your attitude towards Bill Alek, and why? Think about it.

Not so much an attitude as just a knowing of where Bill has spent much of his spare time in the last 15 years or so versus where you have spent yours.   He has been focused on this one concept for a long time (based loosely I believe on Tom Bearden's MEG) and doesn't spend a lot of time on forums refuting hundreds of different devices and concepts.   It would also appear he 'believes' free energy is possible whereas it would appear you lean toward 'believing' it is not.   You empower that which you focus on. 


Here is what I 'believe'.   I believe mainstream science, physics, electrical and magnetic theory is seriously flawed and most of the people here who are trashing any hope for this device (as well as other devices) are basing their comments on flawed theories.   
Below is a quote from a person on another forum who seems to have a much better understanding of electricity and magnetism.   I would suggest everyone take a look at this and ask  yourself if the information you have been taught is really correct.
A discussion regarding Jefimenko and this book leads into some interesting and relevant quotes from the book and why I think most mainstream info is WRONG.
"Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields, 2nd edition: Oleg D. Jefimenko: 9780917406232: Amazon.com: Books


If you dont know who he was, he was no 'quack' or 'fringe' scientist------
Jefimenko received his B.A. at Lewis and Clark College (1952). He received his M. A. at the University of Oregon (1954). He received his Ph.D. at the University of Oregon (1956). Jefimenko has worked for the development of the theory of electromagnetic retardation and relativity. In 1956, he was awarded the Sigma Xi Prize. In 1971 and 1973, he won awards in the AAPT Apparatus Competition. Jefimenko has constructed and operated electrostatic generators run by atmospheric electricity.


As to FARADAY and MAXWELL, Jefimenko has causation formulas which have FAR FAR reaching implications for power production, but namely to quote him in his exhaustive research into Maxwell and Faraday:

Quotes from the book:

"Neither Maxwell equations nor their solutions indicate a causal existence between electrical and magnetic fields. ......Therefore we must....."

As formula 1.5.1 shows there can exist "sourceless" EM fields whereas formula V-28 shows such fields are impossible (as per Maxwell

Causation formulas show that mutual instant EM induction as a phenomena in which one fields 'creates' the other is impossible (formula 1.4.1 1.4.2)

Faraday NEVER even as much as suggested that induced currents were the result of charging magnetic fields, On the contrary he clearly associates the phenomena of EM induction with changing electrical currents.

Maxwell......considered EM induction as phenomena in which a EMF is induced in a circuit..but NOT as phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electrical field.....NO SUCH WRITING (of Maxwell on this) EXISTS.

He clearly states that the induced EMF is "measured BY , but not CAUSED BY the changing magnetic field". Just as Faraday , he made NO allusion to ANY causal link between magnetic and electric fields (as we conceive them).

"Thus according to Maxwell, the displacement current was not a changing electric field....as we interpret it today, but a displacement of electrical charges (inertial) residing inside the dielectric media"

(DOLLARD WOULD LOVE THAT QUOTE<<<<<<) 

However.....the expression of "force exerted by a moving magnet" is actually a misnomer, since as we have proven (formulas 1st chapter) this force has no causal link with the magnetic field of the magnet. The phenomena of "induced electric force" or "induced current" by a moving magnet is simply the effect of the electric field caused by the collection translational motion of the (inter-atomic) currents participating in the circulation of magnetism


If you think Oleg is a "nut" after reading that, Id remind you 70% of his book is formulas for which NOT ONE person I have ever seen (and I have looked) has EVER refuted a single one of them."

The person writing the above message on EF is the person I brought up in a thread I started on him and his dedicated long time study of magnetism and the book he has written on the real nature of magnetism.   Below is a link to his new thread: 
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/showthread.php?s=b7bc671d6faceba07c4b0a645a58334e&t=19554
titled "Free energy' thats been hiding under your noses from Faraday and Maxwell themselves"

[tinman]

The thing that I see is that this is the first "reasonable" device that I've seen that if shipped in any kind of reasonable timeframe,
would make validation pretty much of a sure thing. It's one thing if the device shows reasonable behavior in Auroratek labs, it's
another if it shows reasonable behavior in your own.

If its an energy source with a battery to get it started, and a charger to keep an acid/lead battery from dying prematurely,
I would be a satisfied customers. Micro controlled battery chargers can get quite sophisticated these days, but the main item is
to stop charging the battery when the voltage gets to the charge termination voltage, and to start charging if it is not. I think
any kind of battery charger would prove that Bill can throttle his energy source to change it's output level rather then do a dump
load resistive energy dump.

Also it looks like Bill and Aurora are kind of doing this on the side, I doubt that they will be unveiling all these devices at the same
time. I frankly would much rather skip any "word salad theory" and being forced to pay homage to "theories unknown" but simply
gain access to a reasonable energy source. I'd much rather have Bill say when asked how it works; "Well, that's proprietary information".
Don't talk about it...ship it!  As long as it doesn't end up creating miniature black-holes, I think most people are much less interested
in accessing other dimensions and having antigravity under their belts as they are in having free energy.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[TinselKoala]

Chet, in order to design a realistic test protocol, we absolutely need to know some details first.

What exactly are the claims? How does this apparatus perform differently from other state-of-the-art, but not "overunity", apparatuses of similar kind?
In what form is the energy input to the device? In what form is the energy output from the device?
Will the testers be allowed to see a schematic of the device if it is electrical, or some actual engineering drawings of it if it is mechanical, before deciding what and how to test?
Where is the _raw data_ that leads the claimant to state that this device is special or different from "ordinary" devices of similar kind?

Answer these questions and perhaps you'll get a reasonable test protocol. Waving your hands around and saying "it's a better battery charger, Bill invited me home for dinner, now how can I test it" isn't going to get you very far.

[TinselKoala]

@e2matrix: You have a great problem. Please explain how and why all those people who are working with what you call 'seriously flawed' EM theory are able successfully to design things like... for one example... the computer you are reading this on, whereas those who believe in other formulations... like Alek for example.... cannot design anything that actually works as they claim.
Why is that? Please explain.

And I would also submit to you that you have no idea how I've spent my time over the past fifteen years. But you can consider this: Bill Alek is still paying for his electricity, and the devices I have built in that time frame work exactly as I have described them. Bill cannot say the same thing. Antigravity? I laugh at you and your citations of Jefimenko, whom you clearly have never read in the original and couldn't understand if you had.