New video on site of possible OU test fixture

[Butch]

http://lafontegroup.com
New video is first file on front page of site.
Thanks,
Butch
Also see drawings section for more details.

[Humbugger]

Hi Butch...

I spent some time checking out your website and videos.  I don't get it.  Are you working on OU?  After looking at each video and all the drawings, I still don't see anything that indicates OU or, for that matter, anything at all remarkable, anti-intuitive or surprising.  What's with all that work, anyway?  What are you really working on?

I have $100,000 to invest but, so far, I'm not really finding anything on this site that looks fruitful or even close.

Humbugger

[Honk]

If you have $100,000 to invest you should contact either Jack Hilden-Brand or Paul Sprain.
Those people are the only ones having OU capable machines, at least wait a month,
then we will know for sure who wins the OU race. Either Jack or Paul, or none of them.....

[Humbugger]

@Honk

You know from previous posts that I have a great deal of respect for your EE design and build talents.  Your skills are clearly well-honed in that area.  I guess I'm just not too convinced of the general critical-thinking ability when you suggest popping $100,000 over to the likes of Jack or Paul. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think either is an evil or outright fraudulent scam-artist person; I just think they are more likely really good and sincere and eager guys who, sadly, have deluded themselves and many others, unintentionally.

Look at the Sprain motor and follow this basic simple logic:

1)  Without external energy input, the Sprain motor will not run past the sticking point, no matter where it is started by letting go of the rotor from a dead stop.  True and obvious?  It is to me.  If you put energy in by mechanically spinning it; it slows down and stops fairly quickly.  Do we agree so far? 

2)  These simple, observable, clear facts prove beyond any question that the rotational drag around the sticking point is always enough to cancel and overwhelm all the combined rotational-accellerating forces of all the permanent magnets in the stator spiral and the rotor because it obviously negates all the inertia imparted to the rotor by them.  Is that clearly obvious and true?  It is to me.  The rotor starts, turns and then stops, period.

3)  Stated more simply, the "negative sticky bad force" is always equal to or larger than the total "positive good spin force" accumulated into the system by all the permanent magnets.  There is a net zero turning force supplied by the permanent magnets.  N.E.T. Z.E.R.O.  If this were not true, the rotor would not stop.  We would see pure PM motors, linear and rotary, cycling by themselves with no electromagnets or other external energy input at all.  But we don't do we?  Nope!  Only Larry Tseung and Steorn see these, and only when no one else is looking.

4)  So, if a net positive rotational inertia is to be built up in the machine, making it spin continuously, even with no discrete mechanical load other than air resistance and bearing friction, all of that energy must come from elsewhere than the permanent magnets!  And, any energy taken out of the shaft must also be provided by inputting an equal amount more energy than it takes to just spin freely.  The magnets add nothing, we have already shown that.

Somehow, we have otherwise highly intelligent people concluding differently.  I don't see how, except by wishful thought and self-delusion.

Published in PesWiki:

In Feb. 2006, Paul Sprain reported his results as:

out
.6 Nm at 10 radian/sec = 6W
in
19.8v @ 1.9A = 37.62W each pulse is 28 milliseconds = 1.05 W per pulse 3 pulses per sec = 3.1W total input

Now, really look at these numbers for a moment...do they make sense? 

The fact is, he is calculating energy in joules, not power in watts, when he multiplies 28ms (time) by 37.62W (power), yet he gives the result in Watts...wrong! 

Then there is the serious concern in my mind that, if he doesn't know the difference between power and energy, how can I trust him to properly measure the input voltage and current?  He reports it as if it were strictly a square wave, with current into the electromagnet rising neatly and abruptly (i.e. no inductance) from zero to 1.9A, holding steady for 28ms and then falling neatly back to zero.  Voltage delivered to the coil is reported as constant as well.  It's as if he were delivering power to a resistor!  I'd be surprised if the scope trace were nearly that neat and clean.

So, simply stated, I do not invest in such "magic motor" technologies because:

1) in every case I have seen or heard about, every claim of overunity has been due, upon closer inspection, to bad math and/or bad measurements

2) no fed-back self-runner has ever been shown and publicly demonstrated convincingly...none are available for purchase...many scams and frauds have been exposed and many have been promising machine delivery for decades, meanwhile bilking investors

3) no all-PM motor has ever turned freely on its own even under zero load. 

I just do not believe that, in fact, there has been any actual progress closer to those goals ever since the effort began to extract free rotary motion from permanent magnets.  That has been a few centuries at least.  Huge numbers of inventors and financiers have tried, most earnestly; all have failed. 

I believe there is a reason for that lack of achievement other than insufficient effort and funding, and it's not "government suppression".

If we are just into believing people's claims with no actual evidence other than their word, why not go with Lawrence Tseung?  He's supposedly got several OU machines and free-running pm-only motors going, one of which he says has been demonstrated for the Chinese government and garnered over a billion dollars in funding for the inventor!  Bah...humbug!

[Omnibus]

@Humbugger,

Your eloquent debunking misses one important discovery, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that overunity is real. You say:

"1) in every case I have seen or heard about, every claim of overunity has been due, upon closer inspection, to bad math and/or bad measurements"

However, as I have shown conclusively, SMOT violates CoE and does produce excess energy. Don't get me wrong I'm not looking for investments at all. I just want to correct your statement. In addition, I should say that SMOT so far is the only device that I have seen violating CoE.