InnovaTehno.eu Free Energy Device - a big Fake or the real thing ?

[ramset]

Shanti
I had not read this debunk claim , may have heard it in Passing ..but this is the first Material presented here ?? [which I cannot read BTW] also I see no date on your link ?

would be good to have a quality translation ,so as to Vet this debunk ??

respectfully
Chet K

[NRamaswami]

I have to beg to differ on the debunking business. Most do not know what exactly was done and do not replicate exactly the device debunked. They make some attempt and then debunk it.

Patrick has published his Chapter 22 in December on Multiple Wave Oscillator appratus of Georges Lakhovsky. This is not a COP>1 device but a medical device and the Patent for it existed but no one has been able to build a working device. I built a poor replica of what is described in Chapter 22 of Patricks book. The device consumes from 120 watts to 600 watts and has been deliberately built with a weak electric field by us. The device is able to light up a 40 watt tube light when it is placed in between the two aerials without touching any thing proving that high frequency electric field is certainly generated. But the secondary turns are kept deliberately low so that the Electric field is low. On the internet you find videos where there are sparks coming out of the rings. Now can I say in all my honesty look it is a fake it does not produce sparks and so what is shown in youtube ought to be a fake for what I did does not produce sparks. I naturally cannot for I'm carefully experimenting with a high voltage device and have to step by step increase the electric field. This is for a device for which full disclosure and construction details are provided. There is a lot of difference between the actual build and what is disclosed in the patent.

Do we know any info on construction of Hans Coler, Hubbard, Figuera or Hendershot devices. We have none. When that is the case how can we in all our honesty or modesty claim that things have been debunked? I'm unable to accept in the fairness of the debunking writings. I have measured many times COP>1 output but it has been negated for measurement errors and I agree that there is a significant possibility as the results are on the borderline. But if some one says look I do not know about a particular device build and I do not care for the very name iand any device associated with it is debunked is to put it very respectfully not fair.

[Shanti]

Sorry to again go offtopic, just a little addition:

Do we know any info on construction of Hans Coler, Hubbard, Figuera or Hendershot devices. We have none. When that is the case how can we in all our honesty or modesty claim that things have been debunked

Yes we do have quite detailed descriptions of Coler's construction (even a detailed listing of the materials), which BTW as I said is actually from Willi von Unruh.

User Dodes' (in a german forum) successful replication of the Magnetstromapperat principle, together with all the data we have now gathered about the Coler story IMHO clearly debunks it. Have you read the whole thing? Doesn't seem to be the case to me!
E.g. that they obviously deceived with the meters on the Stromerzeuger IMHO clearly takes any credibility from them...

Sure you can still believe this is all coincidence and so on, and construct a possible story, so that you can still believe it was genuine (and especially in Coler's story there are a few points on which you can point for justification), but you can also believe in pink invisible elephants...
But IMHO from an objective POV looking at the whole story, you clearly can only conclude it being quite a fraud.
Otherwise I rather see a big case of cognitive dissonance (ignoring facts, when they don't fit into your belief system)
BTW: Even Coler himself was later wanted in germany for a fraud trial...

I mean what more do you need?
*  Wrong translation of the underlying Norrby patent, probably starting it all. (Original french was "increase in voltage", which has been wrongly translated into "increase of power")
* Successful replication of the Magnetstromapperat principle (and it's energy is based on a galvanic action)
* "Inventor" has already been in jail for fraud
* When engineers visited to test, they discovered that they should have been deceived with the built in meters and when they measured themselves, measured no OU anymore.
* A lot of money was involved...
* A very shady side-story of Willi's allegedly brother Hans which was also convicted for fraud (he confessed). He claimed to be able to convert salt into gold.
...

[NRamaswami]

I would very openly concede the following.

a. I have not read the German report.
b. I do not care about the reports for whether they are genuine or not is not known to me unless I experiment and find out.
c. My standard for debunking some thing is to attempt to replicate some thing as described and if it does not work, either my build is poor or the inventor has not disclosed full details.
d. My experience in my hands on experiements is that most if not all hide critical details. the MWO patent has been there from 1931 but no one was able to replicate it until very recently. It is a device built and commercially sold and patent was available online for all to attempt to replicate. Even now I do not believe that the method of treatment is disclosed.
e. I do not go by hearsay evidence. Nor do I go by the inventor has been arrested.


My question is fairly simple.

Did you ever attempt to replicate the success or failure of the unit? If you did not why and how are you competent to certify or debunk some thing about which you have no hands on experience.

Some German name is thrown around and do we know that he is the genuine inventor? If he is indeed he would certainly not disclose the real information. 

Experimental observation and assessment and understanding of principle is key. If you say look this is what I did in a detailed way, I spent my time, money and effort on it and these are my build qualities and these are the observations then you can say about your observations. Mr. X stated some thing in Y language forum and I do not need any thing more than that to debunk it looks like an attempt to prevent people to looking in to this carefully. It may not work for no one provides full disclosure even in patents and we write patents basically to prevent from copying the invention and not to enable them to duplicate it unless they are experts in the subject matter.

It is not a question of faith or belief or lunacy. It is a question of whether you have conducted the experiments, carefully noted down the conditions and attempted to replicate them and whether the original data are reliable or available and how do you certify something without a first hand build experience.

We have lot of TV channels here. One would report a certain fact to be truth and another would present the opposite version. This is called information warfare to disorient, misinform and misdirect people to convince them that a certain thing is the real fact and that they must believe it without ever questioning it. This is not the scientifc method of validation and rejection. 

[memoryman]

NRamaswam: in "c. My standard for debunking some thing is to attempt to replicate some thing as described and if it does not work, either my build is poor or the inventor has not disclosed full details." you left out the most likely case: the invention could never work (all OU/FE inventions fail because of this).