Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Wilby,
I'm a believer!![In O. U.,and Open source]

What can I say?

Chet
Ps
I am impressed with your "recall"!

[WilbyInebriated]

Wilby,
I'm a believer!!

What can I say?

Chet

more like a faither!!
i already explained the difference between belief and faith to you in another thread... 

[The Eskimo Quinn]

without getting into a discussion about friction losses, overunity is not a discovery at all, when you lift a 1kg up i metre it costs exactly what you get from a vertical fall that is newtons own math, newtons own math also concedes momentum through fall as additional energy gained from gravity and that is never been argued, so that in itself is the admission of overunity.

take your one kilo weight place it on your bicycle wheel at one second past 12 position and release, at the 1 second past 6 position you have reached unity production in math of the same amount of joules as it cost to raise it to the top, what you see wit the momentum swings "IS" overunity, it has simply been the mechanics that has baffled everyone, why, because you keep trying to have it cycle in order to call it a machine.

so take two wheels the same as above side by side facing you cogged so when one turns the other turns, now simply place your one kilo weight back at one second past 12 on the right hand wheel and mark With a pen at one second to 6 on the left hand wheel, now let it go, as the momentum swing reaches around ten o'clock look at the left hand wheel and the marker, it did not simply rotate 180 degrees or 1 metre vertical as per the energy input it is at 8 o'clock almost at the start point, so if you generator is on the left hand side what can you tell me now.

separation of mechanics is what i doscovered, overunity is an admission in math not recognised by the idiots who quote it every day.

This one single post is what explains all grvaity drives and overunity and those who dispute what they see here on this post should not be given texters much less computers and access to the internet. those who do see the action of the second wheel for the energy cost of the first, undertsand that even 11 oclock on the second would have been sufficient, a gravity wheel uses momentum to drive another machine that produce power, the generator is of course induction so the is no load ever, it simply runs to capacitance.

I have simply replicated the action, not in this manner, but the same principal for commercially usable. but there you go. over unity proven in another machine posted for you here now with child proof instructions. have a nice day

EDIT: i think i can add one more thing without comprimising any patent application, always remeber that the fall to six oclock is unity as described when the wheel is connected to a generator of equal load as that which lifted it, from this piece of the puzzle you will find the momentum.

NB:As the man at the top so to speak, late this year and early next year will be needing staff, CAD operator, and visaul CAD simulator staff can operate via the net at a, set piece rate of work, mig welder/engineering persons will also be required for fabrication of the hydro units for this company, must be able to read drawings, and electrical engineers for Capacitance design and contruction. This has no overunity component albeit that it more efficient hydro turbines,in power over volume, not power over time. In short the hydro design can produce more power from 1ton of water than a hydro turbine, but over longer time, so less efficient in high volume flow, but in small flows the power is greater, as small flows cannot push huge turbines at any speed, so they are great for farms with creeks and many other smaller flow areas where power is need and turbines are not practical. This I will be doing for at least a year due to time constraints with patents on the other. Additionally, working or not the design of the OU device may prove very expensive and people may not want to pay large sums for it, like solar i guess, perhaps that is the constraint in physics, that the sun is free energy but the cost to access it equals the amount it will produce over 15 years or life of the equipment, maybe gravity has that same issue (looking today at induction turbine costs that would run a house being around 25,000 without a machine connected to it) though the achievement whether utilised or not i still think worth the effort. I never realsied it may end up like that, free energy? at that price hey i can get that in solar and its free too, something perhaps none of us considered. though we would still make it ourselves regardless of commercial application viability. Anway back to the Jobs, my personal messages do not work on this site, so you need to email me, naturally jobs will be standard pay rates no freebies required, you get to work in green energy and i get staff who will understand the second project.

[dirt diggler]

Mr Quinn,

Sounds like a "winner".

Chet.
PS
Couldn't happen to a more deserving Guy!
@ Diggler ,
Good to see you!

Hey Chet,
I never went away, just don't post much anymore, been spending as much time sailing as possible, and work as been crazy busy.
Also been working on some different fuel vapour rigs but this isn't the thread for that

[sm0ky2]

@ archer

the cost of goods isn't controlled by supply & demand much anymore.
to the point that it is negligible when compared to more effective factors, such as production and materials costs.

which are directly related to the cost of energy required to harvest, produce, and transport those materials in usable form for the open markets.

so your theory about energy vs. cost may not be that far fetched. I read a paper on the subject a few years back, sounded a lot like what you posted.
someone actually went through the trouble of calculating the cost to extract the base materials, to refine/manufacture them into a product, the cost of oil to move the stuff from here to there.
and presented it within a reasonable margin. making a theorized link between cost of energy and total production cost of material goods.

when you apply this line of thinking to goods that harvest natural energies, i.e. - wind, solar, geothermal.....  there maybe something to that....

but then again, when you compare that data to today's markets,
the costs of electricity and oil are completely out of proportion.
nearly costing twice as much to produce the same items as when the paper was written. Suggesting that a deflation in the energy market would lead to an "overunity" production rate between energy harvesting and the production cost of materials to do so.

at that point, a single large corporation with access to every step in the system, could automate the whole system, and essentially form a perpetual motion, robotic energy collection system, that self-multiplied, into an ever-expanding global battery.
Further crashing the energy markets, and the system as a whole would be infinitely increasing in "overunity" production to cost ratio. and consequently forming an infinitely increasing power output. Which at certain reasonable levels, you would have to encode an "off" switch to the expansion/self-replication of the system.