I have a proven model I built. I am looking for like minded people who know more

[AlienGrey]

A good eyed dear, what's the rest of her like, but seriously speaking you can forget over unity if it involves an electric motor because of the loses involved, people can argue all they like but that 's what i was tort and all the experiments we did on that subject were tested on the bench ant that was always supported by this rule of thought ! so count me out of this one !

[Temporal Visitor]

Not a false assumption at all. It's a TRUE FACT until you prove otherwise by demonstrating something built from your designs that runs itself.

Quite to the contrary, at best it is OPINION. I chose "false assumption" for in fact such an opinion; "cannot ever be" forecloses the future (if there is going to be any) and its reality, which would require omnipotence that men do not control or possess.

"TRUE FACT"; rather redundant since a "fact" is something done, thus in "reality" and therefore true. In D-O's opinion nothing has been done, nothing can be done, nothing will be done and smells of being false or faulty logic to me.

TK you have been invited more than once, it is up to you to open the door for a look at what you have little if any knowledge of.

Where does kinetic energy "manifest" and where does it come from? Are you kidding? It comes from your power supply and "manifests" as mass in motion. You get out what you put in, minus losses, and in your designs, the losses are massive.

No not kidding at all.

"It comes from your power supply" = fair enough to be considered correct although so generic that it could mean something entirely different from what "in reality" is the power supply actually used in each of the different BUILDS and designs already in existence is.

"and "manifests" as mass in motion." = Perhaps at relativistic velocities but unimportant and not measurable to be significant to the ordinary Joe who simply needs juice of his own making. Unimportant because ALL MATTER has mass whether at rest or in motion. Matter is a physical object, mass is a property of Matter. Kinetic energy manifests WITHIN THE MATTER ITSELF.

We are back to my simple question directly to you that remains unanswered: Are you able to explain how or what you can do to inhibit Nature from manifesting its Kinetic energy within ALL Matter in motion? (I know of at least 2 that are undeniable)

"You get what you put in, minus losses" = True, and in ways you have yet to learn, or not.

Over efficient designs eliminate losses.

[Dog-One]

"TRUE FACT"; rather redundant since a "fact" is something done, thus in "reality" and therefore true. In D-O's opinion nothing has been done, nothing can be done, nothing will be done and smells of being false or faulty logic to me.

I'd prefer if you let me speak for myself.

What I concluded from reading your material doesn't align with what I'm looking for.  Though a struggle, I did actually read the material and attempted to digest the meaning.  With what appeared to me to be contradictory statements, metaphysical claims and a lot of dancing around the core technology, I concluded my efforts would be better spent on my current project, which in order to work, MUST harness an untapped oscillatory power source directly from the environment.  If my current project results in a successful implementation, the device will indeed be self running, since it will have no other power source connected to it.  And I will not have to make any claims whatsoever.  All I will need to do is publish the complete list of parts and assembly instructions, which no one will ever see until I have successfully done this multiple times with identical results.

The fact of the matter is this:  If you do have a working technology, you should know this to be true by having multiple functioning prototypes.  I was unable to discern this from your website.  I saw design and calculations, but no videos of actual working models; no testimonials of others that have replicated any such models.  So when you post to a thread titled, "I have a proven model I built", I would assume you not only engineered this device on paper, but actually built it, followed by the necessary legwork to have it proven.  If the evidence of all this exists, I did not see it.

In any event, I wish you luck.  I haven't the time or resources to assist you in your endeavor.  There was a possibility of adjusting my priorities provided you had clearly demonstrated what you state to be true.  I cannot concur with your assessment and therefore leave you to make improvements to a point where I can unquestionably see an obtainable objective.

[Temporal Visitor]

I'd prefer if you let me speak for myself.

What I concluded from reading your material doesn't align with what I'm looking for.  Though a struggle, I did actually read the material and attempted to digest the meaning.  With what appeared to me to be contradictory statements, metaphysical claims and a lot of dancing around the core technology, I concluded my efforts would be better spent on my current project, which in order to work, MUST harness an untapped oscillatory power source directly from the environment.  If my current project results in a successful implementation, the device will indeed be self running, since it will have no other power source connected to it.  And I will not have to make any claims whatsoever.  All I will need to do is publish the complete list of parts and assembly instructions, which no one will ever see until I have successfully done this multiple times with identical results.

The fact of the matter is this:  If you do have a working technology, you should know this to be true by having multiple functioning prototypes.  I was unable to discern this from your website.  I saw design and calculations, but no videos of actual working models; no testimonials of others that have replicated any such models.  So when you post to a thread titled, "I have a proven model I built", I would assume you not only engineered this device on paper, but actually built it, followed by the necessary legwork to have it proven.  If the evidence of all this exists, I did not see it.

In any event, I wish you luck.  I haven't the time or resources to assist you in your endeavor.  There was a possibility of adjusting my priorities provided you had clearly demonstrated what you state to be true.  I cannot concur with your assessment and therefore leave you to make improvements to a point where I can unquestionably see an obtainable objective.

Hello,

Thanks for your reply and please know that I would not dream of speaking for you.

Additionally so there is no confusion; I hope you know the machine, design, engineering and pdf. writing describing it of this thread are not mine.

The http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/ website is mine and surely does not please everyone which is fine with me.

On that website there is a path to make "contact" to learn more about my work, work that is not on it, and is not a give away.

Those that make "contact" and survive long enough to get to "know" me somewhat more, often get much more of what you wrote of and seemingly expect to be provided as "improvement to a point where I (you) can unquestionably see an obtainable objective".

You are welcome to visit, and surely free to continue looking for whatever may please you.

[MeGaFaRR]

So for all you naysayers. Thank you very much for all the input. Lol whatever it may be. Most naysayers have no more to back their statements than what is our exceptional education system has taught them. Mostly to say "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" instead actually going out and experimenting on their own. Now most of what is taught is correct except for the ideas that would help change the world for the better. And take away any original thoughts that would go against the establishment that has the consumerism of fossil fuel in mind.

For all the others who have positive and helpful comments. Thank you very much. I as always appreciate intellectual conversations to inspire, learn and/or teach others. There are few such as Temporal Visitor, who actually have challenged the establishment education that has taught us so well. It seems the only ones who have positive and helpful suggestions are these same people who actually have built and tested their own equipment and have found that not all that we know and have been taught is correct.

http://youtu.be/KL_ZSrQ5Hf4