New design working

[nyctuber]

April fools?

I hope 'not a traditional wheel design'' doesn't = Uses banana skins 

[PaulLowrance]

1) Credible witnesses

One source that is "Credible" to me is an academic professor at a University. Anyone who's in the "free energy" movement would not be a "credible" source to *verify* such a machine *for other people*, including myself. If your machine is obvious, such as mylow's or the whipmag, then most University professors would gladly take a look.

2) Replication

This should *not* be a requirement if the machine was analyzed and *confirmed* by a notable academic scientist. An academic scientist would take the proper measurements to see if the output is greater than the input.

3) Independent analysis

This falls under that same requirement as #1, "Credible witnesses."


All you need to do to prove your machine is to have a notable academic scientist analyze it that shows the machine is producing more out than in. That's it!  Please drive to your nearest University. 


PL

[powercat]

Hey,
I'm new to this site and found out that this is the place to spread the news.  I have designed and tested a magnetic motor using standard neo's and will be producing a video shortly.  There are a lot of sceptics on this site and I will try to make everyone hapy with the demands they requested on other topics.  For example, glass table, full view with camera showing entire machine.  This will not be a problem.  Hopefully this will end the question if it's possible to create a motor with magnets alone.  For the record it's not a traditional wheel design.  This is going to blow your mind
Till later.

How long is shortly ?
This is going to blow the world if you have free energy

cat

[ramset]

Seems like Didit has left the forum momentarily

Hopefully Hes busy posting his vid

Chet

[0c]

One source that is "Credible" to me is an academic professor at a University. Anyone who's in the "free energy" movement would not be a "credible" source to *verify* such a machine *for other people*, including myself. If your machine is obvious, such as mylow's or the whipmag, then most University professors would gladly take a look.

This should *not* be a requirement if the machine was analyzed and *confirmed* by a notable academic scientist. An academic scientist would take the proper measurements to see if the output is greater than the input.

This falls under that same requirement as #1, "Credible witnesses."


All you need to do to prove your machine is to have a notable academic scientist analyze it that shows the machine is producing more out than in. That's it!  Please drive to your nearest University. 


PL

1) A credible witness does not need to have scientific qualifications, but they should be someone who is trusted. All they need to do is report on what they have seen, that the device works as claimed without any obvious external source of energy being supplied. Anyone trusted by the comminity and with a reputation for honesty could fill this position.

2) A working replication will provide additional evidence that the device is practical and reproducible. It can also be independently witnessed, studied, and analyzed.

3) Independent analysis is where the experts are required. This would be a thorough examination and analysis of the device in a dedicated effort to rule out any possibility of trickery. It should be carried out by a university or professional lab experienced in dealing with the technology.