Magnetic Power Inc - second Patent pending

[ckreol1]

Pennies -- A staff member from the company that organizes this and other conferences gave me this info, not a technical person.Ã,  They said that a comittee had decided that Graham's presentation wasn't a good fit for their conference.

I don't know the reason they dropped it.

I think you have a lot of good questions.Ã,  I have to think Mark and others at MPI monitor this forum and it sure would be nice to here from them.Ã, 

[ckreol1]

@Ergo

I would agree that there aren't a lot of people at MPI.Ã,  However, I think that Graham brought some quality folks with him; specifically folks from a yahoo group called OUBuilders.Ã,  This group was once active with some highly educated and motivated members.Ã,  Graham joined the group and 1 or 2 years later left for MPI.Ã,  Shortly thereafter several of the members of OUBuilders showed up on the roster of MPI employees.Ã,  It was a very organic process and didn't seem like a manufactured put on.Ã,  Since that time, about 3 years ago, OUBuilders has seen very little posting.Ã,  I know several members had personal relationships with Graham.Ã,  The members of this group were very dedicated to OU and physics, in general.Ã,  They spent a great amount of time writing articles for eachother and discussing things.Ã,  Eventually, Graham's experimental research led to a valid OU machine and he got several people in the group to sign NDA's regarding his device.Ã,  Fairly quickly the posting slowed to a stop on this once highly active forum.Ã,  It seems that once they saw Graham's device in action they were convinced the OU mystery had been solved.

Having seen this with my own eyes, it seems to me that the likelihood of Graham having a valid OU device is high.Ã,  I think there have been snags, hold-ups, etcetera, and that Graham has continued to innovate and come up with improvements on his devices and that this is the reason that MPI is taking longer than expected to bring a device to market.Ã,  They are trying to get it right out of the gate, not half-a** it.Ã,  And Graham has the abilities to get it right.

However, I am disappointed that lack of funding has plagued MPI.Ã,  If Graham left, I would be surprised if it wasn't out of frustration over lack of funding.Ã, 

Graham has made it clear that he is, above all, driven by a desire to improve this planet and help people.

I know I've speculated a lot and spoken for other people here.Ã,  I apologize if I have mischaracterized anyone or anything.Ã,  These are only the opinions of an outside observer.Ã,  It would surprise me if others didn't share these opinions, though.


ckreol1

[pennies_everywhere]

@ckreol1 thanks for the info on the convention.

I would like to know what you thought you saw as evidence that Graham had a valid OU machine.  MPI has never presented any evidence that they have ever had such a thing.    A valid independent test by a qualified lab is all that stands between any OU claimant and a tidal wave of investor cash.  MPI's repeated claims to OU, and repeated failures to submit any device to independent test bears witness that they know they don't have OU. 

Mark Goldes puts out ludicrous excuses.  A year and a half ago he blamed testing delays on ETI moving.  ETI has been settled in their new digs for more than a year.  Now Mark inexplicably just declares that they have put the transformers they said worked on the shelf.  MPI has never offered any credible explanation for why if the son of MEG transformer worked as they claimed that they did not submit to testing.  It doesn't matter how difficult it is to make the things.  If the device actually were OU it would be revolutionary and MPI's cash strapped days would be over. 

The description Lee Felsenstein offers of the GENIE device isn't even remotely close to OU.  It is of a very ordinary device that has a feedback mechanism.  The behavior he describes is readily reproduced by a shunt regulator.  In it's simplest electrical form that would be a resistor and a stiff zener diode. 

I am very curious as to what it is you saw something do ( I don't care about the construction ), that makes you think that Graham ever got to OU.  I am even more curious how you reconcile what you think you saw with the fact that MPI never submits to testing.

@Ergo

I would agree that there aren't a lot of people at MPI.  However, I think that Graham brought some quality folks with him; specifically folks from a yahoo group called OUBuilders.  This group was once active with some highly educated and motivated members.  Graham joined the group and 1 or 2 years later left for MPI.  Shortly thereafter several of the members of OUBuilders showed up on the roster of MPI employees.  It was a very organic process and didn't seem like a manufactured put on.  Since that time, about 3 years ago, OUBuilders has seen very little posting.  I know several members had personal relationships with Graham.  The members of this group were very dedicated to OU and physics, in general.  They spent a great amount of time writing articles for eachother and discussing things.  Eventually, Graham's experimental research led to a valid OU machine and he got several people in the group to sign NDA's regarding his device.  Fairly quickly the posting slowed to a stop on this once highly active forum.  It seems that once they saw Graham's device in action they were convinced the OU mystery had been solved.

Having seen this with my own eyes, it seems to me that the likelihood of Graham having a valid OU device is high.  I think there have been snags, hold-ups, etcetera, and that Graham has continued to innovate and come up with improvements on his devices and that this is the reason that MPI is taking longer than expected to bring a device to market.  They are trying to get it right out of the gate, not half-a** it.  And Graham has the abilities to get it right.

However, I am disappointed that lack of funding has plagued MPI.  If Graham left, I would be surprised if it wasn't out of frustration over lack of funding. 

Graham has made it clear that he is, above all, driven by a desire to improve this planet and help people.

I know I've speculated a lot and spoken for other people here.  I apologize if I have mischaracterized anyone or anything.  These are only the opinions of an outside observer.  It would surprise me if others didn't share these opinions, though.


ckreol1

[ckreol1]

@pennies My argument above may not have been very clear.  However, I think my analysis, while entirely circumstantial, has somewhat firm ground.  I'm basing this on the timeline of the migration of Graham and other researchers (I am not naming them here) from the OUBuilders Yahoo group to MPI.  The posts that were made by members at the OUBuilders group over the course of 1 or 2 years make it hard to believe that the entire thing is just a big hoax.

Based on history, and specifically the history of MPI, you do have every reason to doubt their claims.  In fact, any sane person would do so.  However, based on the posts that were made in OU Groups, it would take quite a bit of collusion from some people who had demonstrated seemingly high degrees of integrity to be able rationally explain this as a hoax.

Also Pennies, so I don't sound like a complete dufus, I agree with you that MPI is playing their cards very close to their chest so far.  Recently, they did file a second patent.  It's possible that this patent is the coming out of MPI, although they have made no public claims about this patent.  Anyway, nearly all patent applications are made public 18 months after the filing, so hopefully we'll know then, if not sooner if MPI is legit.

I am not going to fault a company for not naming their partners, doing public tests, etc, when there really isn't much incentive to do so.

They aren't asking the public for money, therefore there really isn't an incentive to make it publicly well-known, is there?

George

[pennies_everywhere]

ckreol1 the trouble with your analysis is that none of it relies upon direct evidence of OU.  It all relies on trying to interpret the motivations behind actions of other people.  There are lots of people who sincerely think that OU, or alternatively some until now unknown source of energy is just waiting for someone to stumble across it.  The OUBuilders forum sounds like such a group.  I don't have any reason to doubt those people's sincerity.  The science is another matter.  The fact remains that there has never been one scintilla of verifiable evidence for OU from:  Graham, that group, or any of the thousands of other OU claimants through the years. 

Verifiable evidence of OU, or a heretofore unknown energy source would be a huge scientific development.  But like any development big or small, it requires verifiable evidence to be taken seriously.  MPI keeps claiming they have such a "breakthrough development" but refuse to offer any evidence that backs their extraordinary claims.  It isn't that there is reason to doubt MPI.  Quite the inverse:  MPI offers absolutely no reason for any rational person to give their claims any credence.  It has always been up to MPI to change that by presenting verifiable evidence.  They never have.  They don't now, and there is no reason to even suspect that they ever will.

The first patent application is a piece of garbage.  It was crafted either by: someone with a total lack of basic physics education, someone intending to pull a fast one, or a combination of the two.  That device boils down to a transformer with very poor coupling.  The patent incredibly claims that somehow by "brushing conductors" with a time varying magnetic field that there is induction where Lenz's Law doesn't apply.  Sorry, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200., go directly back to Physics 101.  Lenz's Law is a description of induction.  It is beneath silly to make the claims that application does that: induction occurs without induction.  There is no reason to expect that a second application is any less absurd.

I don't know where you got the idea that MPI is not seeking money.  Mark is constantly looking for investor cash.  Plug "+Goldes +MPI" into Google and see just how many results are postings by Mark talking about MPI's funding. 

MPI wants investor money in exchange for their claims of OU technology.  It is up to MPI to convince investors they have the technology they claim.  Those claims are easily established without revealing a single detail about the underlying technology, and certainly without exposing information about business relationships.  Any substantive evidence that they have what they claim would open the flood gates to the cash Mark says the lack of which has been MPI's main hindrance.  MPI's refusal to take step one can only rationally be interpreted as MPI knowing they do not have what they claim. 

Sooner or later one has to come to the realization that MPI has always been blowing smoke.  If 25 years of bullshit doesn't do it for you, I'm not sure what will.  Year after year Mark makes the same proven false claims:   validation testing, and big VC / institutional money are just weeks away.  For MPI's free energy machines next week never comes.  It never will.

@pennies My argument above may not have been very clear.  However, I think my analysis, while entirely circumstantial, has somewhat firm ground.  I'm basing this on the timeline of the migration of Graham and other researchers (I am not naming them here) from the OUBuilders Yahoo group to MPI.  The posts that were made by members at the OUBuilders group over the course of 1 or 2 years make it hard to believe that the entire thing is just a big hoax.

Based on history, and specifically the history of MPI, you do have every reason to doubt their claims.  In fact, any sane person would do so.  However, based on the posts that were made in OU Groups, it would take quite a bit of collusion from some people who had demonstrated seemingly high degrees of integrity to be able rationally explain this as a hoax.

Also Pennies, so I don't sound like a complete dufus, I agree with you that MPI is playing their cards very close to their chest so far.  Recently, they did file a second patent.  It's possible that this patent is the coming out of MPI, although they have made no public claims about this patent.  Anyway, nearly all patent applications are made public 18 months after the filing, so hopefully we'll know then, if not sooner if MPI is legit.

I am not going to fault a company for not naming their partners, doing public tests, etc, when there really isn't much incentive to do so.

They aren't asking the public for money, therefore there really isn't an incentive to make it publicly well-known, is there?

George