First Law of Thermodynamics
The amount of energy that is present before and after work is the same (scientist say energy is conserved). For example, let's say you drop a ball. Scientists can measure the energy before, during, and after the fall. The amount of energy remains constant throughout the process. Likewise when an object is thrown or a spring released or something is burned, the energy can be measured. This is the reason behind the first law of thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another; scientists have found that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the first law of thermodynamics:
* Energy is conserved.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
* There is no free lunch.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.)
Second Law of Thermodynamics
During energy transfers, it might seem that energy does go away or become reduced. For example, a bouncing ball stops bouncing, a battery dies, or a car runs out of fuel. The energy still exists but it has become so spread out that it is essentially unavailable. Burning a piece of wood releases light and thermal energy (commonly called heat). The light and heat become dispersed and less useful. Another way to describe this process is to say the energy is concentrated in the wood (chemical energy), and becomes less concentrated in the forms of thermal and light energy.
Let's return to the frantic cat in the room with the puzzle. Although you might be able to find all the pieces of the puzzle after the cat's actions, you cannot put the puzzle completely back together. Some pieces have been bent, others torn, and some the cat, well, use your imagination. In other words, although the quantity of the puzzle remains the same, its quality has been compromised. This cat story is a rough analogy to the second law of thermodynamics.
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics:
* With each energy conversion from one form to another, some of the energy becomes unavailable for further use.
* Heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hot object on its own.
* It is impossible to convert heat energy into work with 100 percent efficiency.
* You cannot break even.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses. (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.)
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 10:07:34 AM
Why can't anyone build this unit and work? I will tell you why, it won't work because you can not get more energy then what you have put in. Why would anyone think this simple unit would create more energy? We understand these law of energy, and yet some people want to believe in this free energy unit. I wish this to be true, but the theory's don't hold up with common sense......
You might wanna educate yourself on the numerous violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In that context, reading Tom Bearden's literature will illustrate that.
If you wanna discuss devices that don`t violate the 2nd law, it is advisable to direct your attention to other forums that discuss ordinary mechanical devices.
There you also won't be "wasting" your energies.
A point where to start is your statement:
QuoteIt is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses
For a device to be overunity, it is not required that the device itself produces the energy. If you correctly look at an open system, then the additional energy is being put into it by the environment. That energy was already there, just you didn't have to pay for it. No violation of the law of conservation of energy at all. Examples are the often mentioned heat-pump, a system including a solar panel or a windmill.
Energy in should always equal energy out, minus losses right? But, consider that the energy in might be from some other "unknown" source. Like solar for example. We now know it is the sun but, if years ago we built a solar cell and input 0, and got 12 volts out, it would be amazing.
Possibly this device taps into other energy sources that would satisfy the 2nd law of themodynamics. Same with the Joule Thief and the Stubblefield earth battery.
Bill
Very simple, prove it! Stop making claims or theory's, it just makes you look very foolish!
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:04:39 AM
Very simple, prove it! Stop making claims or theory's, it just makes you look very foolish!
Ummm....there are many smart folks and very good replicators attempting to do just that. Stand by is all I can say.
Bill
That would be great, just will make them all to look like a fool. If anyone thinks that free energy is around the corner, they must have smoked too much weed. Everything is converted from one state to another, there is aways a lost in this conversion of energy. If you all think that a simple wheel with magnet being spin by a motor will create more energy, then your all dreaming too much. This simple wheel would have been built a long time ago, if that was the case. You don't have to be a electical engineer to see though this scam, it makes some of the overunity people look very stupid. I agree some are very smart on overunity, but where are they now?
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:04:39 AM
Very simple, prove it! Stop making claims or theory's, it just makes you look very foolish!
You need prove that a solar panel or a windmill violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
Just read the literature.
Since this thread is for builders mainly, feel free to continue your discussion
in the forum section called "2nd law violations" here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=25.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?board=26.0
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
That would be great, just will make them all to look like a fool. If anyone thinks that free energy is around the corner, they must have smoked too much weed. Everything is converted from one state to another, there is aways a lost in this conversion of energy. If you all think that a simple wheel with magnet being spin by a motor will create more energy, then your all dreaming too much. This simple wheel would have been built a long time ago, if that was the case. You don't have to be a electical engineer to see though this scam, it makes some of the overunity people look very stupid. I agree some are very smart on overunity, but where are they now?
Well, I have been using free energy for many years now so, what does that tell you? See my Youtube videos if you do not believe me. Have you built this device? How is your replication coming along? It is so easy to say it can't be done but much harder to prove that it can.
If you know for a fact it can't be done....why are you here?
Bill
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:26:18 AM
That would be great, just will make them all to look like a fool. If anyone thinks that free energy is around the corner, they must have smoked too much weed. Everything is converted from one state to another, there is aways a lost in this conversion of energy. If you all think that a simple wheel with magnet being spin by a motor will create more energy, then your all dreaming too much. This simple wheel would have been built a long time ago, if that was the case. You don't have to be a electical engineer to see though this scam, it makes some of the overunity people look very stupid. I agree some are very smart on overunity, but where are they now?
What a troll! Such contempt for this project and all the researchers that are hard at work on this. Moderator where are you!
RD
Free energy from someone outlet? Lett's see you make enough energy to run your home, using what? Bio-mass, solar, gas generator, wind power or what ever. They all need some type of input energy, so they are not free are they? You also have a lost of input vs output of energy don't you? This muller is claiming more energy out then what is being put in, how insane does that sound?
Now that you put your foot in your mouth, please set a link to your free energy running your house.
Thank you..
Yeah i'm a troll, because I ask hard questions? If you all think this will work, please make me eat my words, I will even say i'm sorry for being so stupid! But nobody will, because you cant get more energy then what you put in to this muller magnet scam motor.....
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:39:09 AM
Free energy from someone outlet? Lett's see you make enough energy to run your home, using what? Bio-mass, solar, gas generator, wind power or what ever. They all need some type of input energy, so they are not free are they? You also have a lost of input vs output of energy don't you? This muller is claiming more energy out then what is being put in, how insane does that sound?
Now that you put your foot in your mouth, please set a link to your free energy running your house.
Thank you..
I told you to check out my Youtube videos (48 videos) which evidently you did not do. Your mind is closed so, there is no hope for you. I am sorry. Again, why are you here? Seriously,...why is that? What do you hope to accomplish?
Bill
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:42:19 AM
Yeah i'm a troll, because I ask hard questions? If you all think this will work, please make me eat my words, I will even say i'm sorry for being so stupid! But nobody will, because you cant get more energy then what you put in to this muller magnet scam motor.....
And you "know" this because your exact replication did not work? Is this correct?
Bill
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:42:19 AM
Yeah i'm a troll, because I ask hard questions? If you all think this will work, please make me eat my words, I will even say i'm sorry for being so stupid! But nobody will, because you cant get more energy then what you put in to this muller magnet scam motor.....
No, you are a troll because you insult other people calling them names and lack the ability to discuss scientific issues in a polite, calm manner.
This forum has Terms and Conditions. Most people here do actually adhere to them.
@TommeyLReed : you are just as my collegues, read the title of this forum and start laughing. They cannot see the tree behind the garden. Get fooled by words that do not match a content.
Just try to imagine this spinning device draws heat from the air and convert it into electricity.
Again :OU does not mean it creates energy from nowhere ! It does come from somewhere.
I will be willing to prove my point, if someone sends all the data and parts....
Why should I waste money on something that won't work. This is no different then the Bedini motor idea, has anyone made his unit run to make more enegy output?
@ TommyL Reed . The laws of thermodynamics were written by Lord Kelvin . You may also recall his mathematical proof the heavier than air machines would never fly . Tommy , do you believe in fairies ? There are many pro-fairy sites on the web . Why not spend your time trying to "convert " them . Why would it bother you how we spend our time . At least we are not beating up old ladies or collecting child porn .
TommyLReed... I guess the sun is scamming us with the crooked notion that fusion creates free energy. And also scientists from all over the world must be scamming us, saying that magnetic reconnections in Earths magnetosphere is liberating megatons of free energy derived from magnetic fields. Oh the scams.. ::)
-------
Moderator... Are you out there?
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 11:49:41 AM
I will be willing to prove my point, if someone sends all the data and parts....
Why should I waste money on something that won't work. This is no different then the Bedini motor idea, has anyone made his unit run to make more enegy output?
Yeah, great idea! ::) We will get right on that and take up a collection and send you all the parts and data ::) Great to have you on the team ::)
Wih energy going though the roof, you all think this is a game. It's for real, people need answers and don't want to be scam like they have been in the past. You want me to be nice, and you all think that is a way to get real answers. Your all wrong when these claims are not the truth until everyone can get the same output of energy.
Why is it hard not see though this simple magnet wheel, lets not forget the other claims from the past you all wanted to believe in!
Lol Tommey Reed
Come on Tom it wasn't so long ago, you were on this forum claiming you had a circuit that produced free energy, and members were trying to replicate your work. ::)
maybe it's not you and your account has been hacked ???
you've done some great work over the years, please don't give up on free energy now :o
Well, now that we see you can Reed, where are your replications? Why did you claim OU in the past on here? If OU is impossible, why would you claim it?
I am confused.
Bill
Quote from: Tommey Reed on May 01, 2009, 06:40:03 PM (http://index.php?topic=7241.msg175608#msg175608)Hi Cat,
I am working on the second stage to loop the pulse generator.
This will prove OverUnity.
The BEMF cant be loop, because of the caps need to have 12v constant charge, when the cap drops below 12v the pwm have problems sending the right amount of voltage to the coil.
Almost have to be regulated to work overunity, As for input of 12v power having a constant output, It does show overunity.
Tom
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7241.255 (http://index.php?topic=7241.255)
heh maybe he too has an OU device but does not want to share it for fear of having to pay tax on his generated energy. Cause this will happen. There are a number of motives behind these types of things keep an open mind the guy still believes just as much as you and I the proof is all around him the vast universe with the massive amounts of stars where does all this energy come from a big bang ? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed remember? The alpha and omega parity heh in which case everything is energy and energy is in everything. Energy is our creator it is what we should study!
Thanks for this thread, Mr. Moderator, I didn't want to mess up the original thread either. Maybe Tommey is desillusioned, as am I.
I believe Rom's device works, but the vague claims of "tuning" magnets/coils combined with an exaggerated amount of pulsing circuits posted lately in the original thread completely turns me off. Why can't it be simple? :P
When I first wanted to replicate the device I thought I'd just need to put magnets on the backside of coils to eliminate large part of the cogging and the OU device is done. When reading on in the original thread it seems this isn't enough. I mean... it would be nice if it were, then I would just put an odd/even number of magnets to stator/rotor and would get overunity by the simple fact that the driving motor (*if* I use a motor to drive...) would consume less power than the generator coils produce, due to the magic coils on the backsides. Now I don't think this will work anyway :(
Aside from that I see a greater issue with Rom's device: which is - you won't be able to scale it dynamically. If you want to scale motors or generators they must follow some rules (e.g. thickness of coils etc.). If it follows these rules you can adjust it. With Rom's device we have no rules, neither a theory, because no one understands the principle. This might change, but probably not.
I don't know who it was, who posted something like that "a few more tests and I can confirm RomeroUK's device" a week ago - but never came up with the result. The most probable reason for no result is: his replication didn't work. Why not? I can only guess...
Mabye he tuned not "fine enough"...? Maybe the device is too sensitive and you'll never find the sticky spot. Maybe each device must be tuned individually which is most likely - and this will make any previous tuning process NIL. Even worse when trying to scale the device. Start from scratch again? Tough nut and not very viable unfortunately.
I'm pretty sure this is the reason why common generators (even if they have less efficiency) are still sold - because you can scale them. There might even be some hidden overunity generators out in the wild researched by companies themselves but maybe they suffer the same problem of non-scalability.
oh and now for a real rant: I don't get why constantly people like Bedini, Bearden, Howard Johnson are mentioned... countless people have tried to replicate Bedini with no success but "phantom overunity voltage", Howard Johnsons LTA never worked and Bearden is nothing but a chatterbox who keeps making OU claims, yet failed to provide evidence after many years. This was my own investigation. My 0.02â,¬, Rant ended.
What worries me is the silence from http://www.mullerpower.com/ as far as concerns OU of "The Muller Mark II".
If they can not reach OU, who can? They have all the knowledge of Bill Muller himself (at least what he wrote down or told his daughter).
Of course, it could be that Romero reached OU and Bill Muller never did. But this would be really strange.
But still, I think it is worth while to try a replication. This machine is very interesting and becomes more feasible in the age of microprocessor control. Precise switching and timing seems to be very important and can be achieved nowadays.
One argument against a naive replication is the high mechanical precision a build would require. It is very important to balance the rotor (in order to allow for a very high number of revolutions per minute) and to avoid any wobble (in order to allow for a small gap between the magnets on the rotor and the stator coils).
It needs serious money to have the parts fabricated to a high standard of precision and to buy Metglas high performance cores for the many coils.
The electronics seem to be the cheapest part, even with microprocessor control.
It would be very helpful if more information came forward from http://www.mullerpower.com/. If they achieved OU, it would be justifiable to spend several thousand Euros on a replication.
Greetings, Conrad
I wonder why someone would star this tread , it seems like some people are in conTroll mod.
I my self will to make a build from recycle materiel with a budget on 40 dollars.
Mark
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 10:02:05 AM
First Law of Thermodynamics
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
I remember back when I used to think this way! It's been a long time. LOL! You must "pay" to live on the planet you were born on. There is no free lunch! LOL!
So how does all that dispersed energy get back into the oil, back into the wood, and back into the sun???
Back into the atom, back into the electron in orbit around the atom, back into the earth such that it never misses it's yearly cycle to the nearest 1/4 second?
How does all that dispersed energy, get into the moon, so that moon keeps on moving and regulating our tides? Lot of power being released here especially with all that water on the earth rising and dropping some 6 to 12 feet twice a day. How does all that energy get there?
If all the energy in the universe was to disperse evenly throughout the space that is present, would this not constitute an Aether medium, having energy everywhere? To be scooped up for the asking.
I would suggest that your vision is narrow to only be considering that energy is always being dispersed, and never collected. Is there no free energy collector? From all that dispersed energy that is out there now?
The term "free" has to do only with money. Energy is everywhere all the time, as you state it is not lost only cycled between dispersal and concentration.
If we have a single copper atom, and a "free" electron. Now we drop that electron on that copper atom, what happens? Does that electron go into an orbit on the surface and attain a velocity of .9999999995 light speed?
Where did that energy come from? How did it get into that electron? How come we can do this over and over, and that "energy" just keeps being present there to accelerate that electron???
How come it takes a tremendous amount of energy to pull those little atoms apart? Is this not the opposite of entropy? It takes an atom bomb to stop those electrons protons and neutrons from doing that little dance of constant energy recovery.
Bang that electron with an external magnetic field and what does it do? It recovers its orbital structure the moment the impulse is gone. Where in the world did it get that recovery energy? How does it pay for that?
Quote from: Mk1 on May 21, 2011, 03:16:34 PM
I wonder why someone would star this tread , it seems like some people are in conTroll mod.
I my self will to make a build from recycle materiel with a budget on 40 dollars.
Mark
@Mark: part of the OU forum is gossip, why not?
It is nice to be able to build something from recycle material. My worry is: If the rather expensively built http://www.mullerpower.com/ "The Muller Mark II" is not OU, how can a contraption be OU?
But that does not mean one should not try. One can build a rather crude steam engine or a simple conventional electric motor and both will demonstrate the underlying principle nicely. If OU exists, it should in principle be feasible with crude means. But if sophisticated means fail, the crude means will fail as well (if they are both based on the same principle).
Greetings, Conrad
Muller did not claim his machine is overunity, he told he believes self run day will come. As well as Bedini said honestly his device is not OU, just Battery Desulphator. There are just some third party, presumably bulk of interested persons, one who is getting back invested funds , others see just easy way to hornswoggle simple simons.
About these coils and magnets ::) there is no way to explain anything ... fanatic folks come at once to call names :o
I do not disapprove when some unenlightened wiseacre impersonates crackerjack, just funny.
I like and respect every kind of experiments included such kind buildings, what I do not like is lie, lying brings sooner or later to fake, fake is I hate.
I have my personal opinion about current story and about the cadre. Perhaps no lyings, just medical question. Anyway sad.
cheers,
khabe
I read a post once that the amount of cosmic radiation that strikes our earth 24/7 is enough to
light 200,000 hundred watt light bulbs for every man, woman, and child on the earth.
Also read that because of its extreme high frequencey; most of that energy passes right through the earth
and keeps on going. So there is plenty of free energy all around us, we just need to find a way of taping into it.
Also wanted to remind anyone reading this post that; all studies being conducted on high energy particles,
is conducted in particle beam accelerators. These accelerators use high power magnetic pulses to control a
stream of particles and accelerate them around a track an faster and faster speeds, and then they
use magnetic fields to redirect these high energy particles into test chambers were they collide with each other
and other matter. When these collisions take place there are billions of electron volts released by the collision.
I mention these facts to remind people that the best possible way to extract free energy from the cosmos is
probably going to be with the use of strong magnetic fields arranged in a certain fashion.
So I believe unquestionably that one day, someone will discover the right combination of magnetic fields that is
required to focus and extract some of that massive energy out there.
So I will always have an open mind when it comes to claims of over unity from a magnetic device.
Just my 2 cents worth. Also please visit my science page and read my theory of how a star works:
http://abbarue.com/science/
There is an all you can take smorgasbord of electricity for our petty little planet and all other intelligent bearing planets at the rate that we find planets even capable of that it is certain ... The energy if it is only converted is technically infinite so to speak as it can never be destroyed. To tap it we can make resonant coils to capture that radiation it is being worked on. A 7 um coil can capture the infrared spectrum 24/7 and that is because that is the wavelength of the infrared spectrum actually between 5 and 10 um there are two collages working on this and have proven it works just collect IR energy from antenna what other wavelengths are in the universe and what is there wavelength think of the videos you see of NASA recording the sounds of space there are some amazing sounds so if we could tune coils to other wavelengths I would assume we could capture energy from them as well! Again this is just theory but rather interesting I think there is another wavelength that we are not able to measure capture or use quite yet as well it would only make since to me because in order for some of the quantum states to exist in entanglement there must be some kind of communication between the two atoms or group of atoms to relay information a type of instant communication. I like the theory of superlight myself it almost appears as if this could really be a force at play here it is likely a faster then the speed of light communication once uncovered it will revolutionize the planet.
I think if you look up nuclear power plants that as i you will find they are classified as first order perpetual motion machines or devices.
I do not argue that energy as a whole is not set at some fixed volume for the entire system but this is not to say it cannot be directed to perform work or gathered simple examples of this are electrostatic machines and there power flows which are local area actions which can be repeated and not have equal volume for the force used to generate the action.
In short all things do not appear equal or you would not be able to lift the ball to bounce it in the forst place as it would require more work against the field than the ability to overcome the field action and there would be no motions in the entire system at all.
Because we do not fully understand the system at this time that is no reason to say that it is not possible but rather it is expressing only a point of view that is well enforced.
Martin
http://www.youtube.com/user/geshbeddin?feature=mhee
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding... I work about Heins theory and I work in secret with another design of this transformer. The curious effect I have noticed recently is when (in special configuration of course) I short the secondary the input current decrease rather than increase, I have placed a light bulb in serie with the primary: the light intensity decrease also, more test with voltmeter and ammeter still needed for confirming this effect, actually my conclusion is the reaction can help the action (reactionless "effect"), remenber the CEMF is energy also, this maybe the key of OU in my advice. I am more and more sceptic about "laws of thermodynamcis", some old "laws" about 200 years... Or a transformer (or any magnetics device), is open system, it pump into infinite source like time, gravity, or environement...
A question about black hole, if the energy cannot be destroyed or created, where the matter/energy goes when they are eaten by a black hole ? It seems they are disapearing into nowhere... :D
A copy of one of my message in another section:
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding... I work about Heins theory and I work in secret with another design of this transformer. The curious effect I have noticed recently is when (in special configuration of course) I short the secondary the input current decrease rather than increase, I have placed a light bulb in serie with the primary: the light intensity decrease also, more test with voltmeter and ammeter still needed for confirming this effect, actually my conclusion is the reaction can help the action (reactionless "effect"), remenber the CEMF is energy also, this maybe the key of OU in my advice. I am more and more sceptic about "laws of thermodynamcis", some old "laws" about 200 years... Or a transformer (or any magnetics device), is open system, it pump into infinite source like time, gravity, or environement...
A question about black hole, if the energy cannot be destroyed or created, where the matter/energy goes when they are eaten by a black hole ? It seems they are disapearing into nowhere... :D
@Khabe .It is interesting that you met Bill Muller . You say that he never claimed That the Muller Dynamo was Overunity .Then what was his purpose .These days we have cheap inverters to change one type of power/ voltage to another .Why would he go to all that trouble to build what is in effect a rotary converter . Was he also trying to reinvent the horse and cart? I f he was in fact trying to devellop an overunity machine , why would you bother to meet him .There are a lot of us here trying to do the same thing , and you do not seem keen to meet any of us ? So Mullers machine did not work . And Romero`s machine did . And Romero` s machine goes "missing" . What conclusion can we reach here? All I am saying is that it seems strange to me .
Quote from: neptune on May 22, 2011, 07:57:15 AM
@Khabe .It is interesting that you met Bill Muller . You say that he never claimed That the Muller Dynamo was Overunity .Then what was his purpose .These days we have cheap inverters to change one type of power/ voltage to another .Why would he go to all that trouble to build what is in effect a rotary converter . Was he also trying to reinvent the horse and cart? I f he was in fact trying to devellop an overunity machine , why would you bother to meet him .There are a lot of us here trying to do the same thing , and you do not seem keen to meet any of us ? So Mullers machine did not work . And Romero`s machine did . And Romero` s machine goes "missing" . What conclusion can we reach here? All I am saying is that it seems strange to me .
We never met, just talked. Muller had his own understanding about free energy, he admitted his device does not self run, ibid he believed it will run ... just something need to be done a little bid more ... or even no self run - he hardly believed this device will come in use in cooperation with other sources of energy. We talked in nineties when I was building similar machine for ...School. Honoured Mr. Muller was fairly resentful because this machine meant as sample as "new era perpetuum mobile", like exhibit. I tried to reassure this old man that student will surely make a lot of tests with and will make their own conclusions.
cheers,
khabe
Quote from: SchubertReijiMaigo on May 22, 2011, 05:48:14 AM
A copy of one of my message in another section:
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding.
Are you handy with electronics?
If you are, or know someone who is, you should phase match, and add the signals.
If you need info on how to do this, look up, and read, genset pairing or solar/wind system grid-tie information.
Often a solar systems output (after inversion) is AC which is out of phase with the POCO (Power Company), so grid-tie inverters phase-match. This will allow you to take out of phase signals and add them together without the loss of a diode drop and DC conversion.
*****************
@Mr, UK
Also, I see many folks over-using diode bridges (bridge rectifiers). When you are dealing with such low power generation, why THROW AWAY a volt and a half on each bridge??
Read up on capacitive rectification, and using MOSFETs as IDEAL (no drop) diodes.
I am by no means a know-it-all, but I see simple errors all over that could help push people a little closer to their goals on this site.
Another thing to look into would be small signal power harvesting. It would allow you to charge caps with VERY LOW power.
You can then use a switch (optical or HALL effect) to activate a pair electro-magnets to get the boosts you need to overcome magnetic cogging.
If you have a few mA and mV to spare in this dynamo, you can charge a capacitor. Use a XLP PIC to monitor the cap voltage and when at proper levels, attach the load, and pulse the electromagnets. After a few cycles, disconnect the load and continue along your battery switching routing (using the PIC to handle this also) and charging the capacitor for the next cycle.
Doing this will give you MINIMAL cogging.
If you are going to continue using diodes, use germanium diodes instead of silicon, you will gain .2v instantly on your system. They have a lower diode drop than silicon. This will give you what you need to use the harvesting technique.
A vibrating piezo can charge a large cap over time with these harvesting circuits.
You should really look into this.
+1 to your troll diploma on the other threads
Again. You are misunderstanding the concept of OU. Imagine that you need 3 barrels of oils to produce 100 barells ( refine crude oil). That is OU. There is no magic in this, you just need to find the process of refinement...
I think i would tend to agree with the statement that it is a process as over the years i have seen and read up on many processes used by big business for either fuel savings or energy savings that are not used by the general public nor are they promoted this is mainly due to the flow of money but that aside most people do not pick up on these tips when they are put forward either. that does not mean it is not possible.
if a train can move a ton of freight 350 miles for a gallon of fuel why can't a car do the same? PROCESS plain and simple.
how many times on this forum have you heard discussed the phase shift of energy.
you need good discussions before you can do things that are not readily excepted such as you cannot do other than established physics with established physics. then learn the other process in short we need to be open minded.
Martin
@TommyLReed
QuoteThe amount of energy that is present before and after work is the same (scientist say energy is conserved). For example, let's say you drop a ball. Scientists can measure the energy before, during, and after the fall. The amount of energy remains constant throughout the process. Likewise when an object is thrown or a spring released or something is burned, the energy can be measured. This is the reason behind the first law of thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another; scientists have found that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.
I think it is important to understand the contradiction in the statements above, all this nonsense relies on the fact that energy remains constant in a closed system because they consider it a closed system. That is they state that in a perfectly isolated/closed box the energy is constant because the box is closed which is nothing more than stating the obvious. My first question for these scientists would be can you give me one single example of a perfectly closed/isolated system? You see there are no completely isolated systems that we know of anywhere in the known universe so there argument is pointless.
QuoteThe following set of statements are various ways of expressing the first law of thermodynamics:
* Energy is conserved.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
* There is no free lunch.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.)
Actually the first law of thermodynamics states---
Quote"In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced."
and
QuoteIn a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it.
You will notice that the first law of thermodynamics relates directly to heat hence the term Thermo(heat)-Dynamic(relating to energy/motion). As such I think all the expressions of the first law you have noted are irrelevant as any expression not related directly with heat energy has no business being lumped in with thermodynamics, which should be obvious. I also think that assuming the amount of energy in the whole universe is constant because of the simple relationship between heat and work is absurd.
QuoteSecond Law of Thermodynamics
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics:
* With each energy conversion from one form to another, some of the energy becomes unavailable for further use.
* Heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hot object on its own.
* It is impossible to convert heat energy into work with 100 percent efficiency.
* You cannot break even.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses. (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.)
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Actually the second law of thermodynamics states---
QuoteNo process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.
Now to me expressions are kind of like opinions and opinions as we know are not facts especially when they have nothing to do with the subject at hand which is thermo(HEAT)dynamics. Take this expression--"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum", now how in the hell could anyone make such an absurd statement when we have very little understanding of the small part of the universe we can actually see let alone the whole universe-- this is pure speculation. Here is more nonsense--" It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses", now what does this mean--a machine which "produces" as much "energy" as it "uses"?. I can name hundreds of machines which produce more energy than they use like wind turbines,hydro-power and solar power. What could they be talking about? Well they are talking about the same nonsense as they were prior, that is this expression means absolutely nothing unless they put their "machine" in some magical isolated/closed box-- which is insane.
I should make it clear that I believe in the conservation of energy and have no problem with it however I do have issue with unproven theories which rely on magical closed boxes that must exclude all external sources of energy we know as a fact are present everywhere in the known universe. All you have to do is ask the right questions--- give me one example of a perfectly isolated system anywhere, give me one example of any space in the known universe where no forms of energy are present. You see a good theory must hold up under scrutiny and not simply fall apart when the right questions are asked.
Regards
AC
Elecron Manipulator makes a valid point about using germanium diodes rather than Silicon. However, Romero is achieving a huge overunity if he really is lighting that auto bulb he shows in the video with silicon diodes.
I've had great fun over the years building Bedini stuff as well as other similar devices. Bedini has never claimed OU for the monopole energiser itself, only that it conditions batteries which I have found is the case. Like Muller, Romero himself has clearly stated that his device is not a self-runner. Lidmotor's experimental setup is showing that the rotor can spin with very little input power, just as the Bedini monopole can. Can the next person who posts a video of a Romero replication claiming self-running reall be believed?? Of course, because its what some need to believe at face value to spur them on in their quest to achieve self-running. The important thing as has been mentioned before, is that we all have fun building gadgets, especially those that feature magnets and spinning wheels. We all know, that proving to the world that our gadgets actually self-run will take a lot more than simply making the claim with video or two. Those that have the dream, just ignore the naysayers and continue having fun building and lots of it.
Hoppy
Ladies and Gentlemen
I have now been convinced that these videos by RomeroUK are fakes, and I want to thank wattsup for persisting and having patience with me as I worked through the evidence. I just did not want to accept they were fake and wanted to give Romerouk the benefit of doubt, but facts are facts. This has really been a test of gullibility, and I have failed. But that's OK, I'll be more critical next time, I hope!
How they were faked.
1) Video 1 was faked quite easily by supplying the output rail directly from the input. I should of acted on my instincts earlier when I noticed that his output voltage was the same value as his input voltage.
2) Video 2 was faked by taking these same wires supplying the output rail (wire-X), down through the table cap to a hidden battery, just like wattsup has shown.
3) Video 3 is not proving anything, it's just a spinning rotor.
So when you had enough of tweaking and can't get that dynamo "tuned" just right, than perhaps you might want to consider the truth. RomeroUK told us quite clearly it was faked and even apologized. It really was not his fault, he was just playing a joke on the one guy that was on his forum, but than this was brought to Stefan's attention and it got promoted to a wide audience. After his confession, Mr Sterling showed up with the legal accusations and questioning, and Romero became scared and afraid of legal action, so he changed his story and invented a suppression story, and just so his conscience won't bother him any longer, he says he will no longer talk about the dynamo. He also hates to see people getting banned from the forum because they say his device is faked, because he knows it is, and his conscience is bothering him.
So please, let's all assure RomeroUK that everything is ok, and that we accept him here without any hatred and animosity. He is a very knowledgeable experimenter and does good work as you can see. Besides, everyone is free to experiment at his own risk on these forums, and you can't be liable for others decisions. After all he did not even claim OU in the videos, just simply made a video. It is us who interpreted the video as OU.
Sincerely,
EM
PS, as an example, in Video 1 we see that wire-X that wattsup talked about, and how it comes to the input side. This was such an obvious fake. In video 2 this same wire is routed through the table hole, just like he showed.
I would like to thank Wattsup for persevering with his video analysis to show conclusively that Romero faked self-running as he admitted.
Hoppy
Why does it take so long to wake up with these free energy scams? I told everyone that this was a total scam in the first place, I did my research a long time ago, and also read Bill Muller claims 20 years ago. What makes anyone think it has changed?
I question some of you so-called engineers today, and you wonder why?
Tom....
After reading the forum where the "proof" for fake is posted I consider it even more fuzzy than the so called "fake" videos.
Besides - Offtopic:
I don't get why some harsh words fell in the overunityresearch.com forum about the way overunity.com is moderated. I personally think that Stefan makes a very good moderator job in here by means of being very patient and open for ideas. I also appreciate a lot, that Stefan does not play "god" in here, even though it's his forum. In most other forums you have 1-2 moderators adding their comments and warnings to any 'pups in the gravel' just for the sake of feeling superior to others.
Not so in here (except you behave really really bad for a long time) - in this board you get: Freedom.
When I first registered in here, I expected many things to be moderated more strictly or some outdated disproven topics to be removed already. But it was this tolerance and openness (aside from the fact that many competent and skilled people are in here too) which kept me in here. As a consequence I've learned lot's of things, and others will too. This relaxed way of moderation may attract disproven or dumb devices as well but they will diminish over time anyways.
Quote from: TommeyLReed on May 21, 2011, 10:02:05 AMThe following set of statements are various ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics:
* With each energy conversion from one form to another, some of the energy becomes unavailable for further use.
* Heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hot object on its own.
* It is impossible to convert heat energy into work with 100 percent efficiency.
* You cannot break even.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses. (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.)
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
The following set of statements mention facts which the second law of thermodynamics overlooks:
* Thermal energy is less than, not equal to, the amount of energy available for work.
* Thermal energy that is derived from matter consists of energy existing mostly in the infrared and visible frequency ranges. These are all but just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic energy that actually exists.
* Energy tends to travel from hot to cold, but another, and more advanced, way to put that is that energy tends to travel from high to low frequencies. This is due to scattering of photon energy.
* The highest frequency energy is sourced from (and sinks to) where the mass-energy density is the highest. This occurs mainly in nuclei.
* The increase in entropy in the universe is due to optical scattering/divergence/concavity.
* Any entropy-reversing process will involve some sort of optical alignment/convergence/convexity.
Quote from: gauschor on July 17, 2011, 03:47:35 PM
After reading the forum where the "proof" for fake is posted I consider it even more fuzzy than the so called "fake" videos.
Besides - Offtopic:
I don't get why some harsh words fell in the overunityresearch.com forum about the way overunity.com is moderated. I personally think that Stefan makes a very good moderator job in here by means of being very patient and open for ideas. I also appreciate a lot, that Stefan does not play "god" in here, even though it's his forum. In most other forums you have 1-2 moderators adding their comments and warnings to any 'pups in the gravel' just for the sake of feeling superior to others.
Not so in here (except you behave really really bad for a long time) - in this board you get: Freedom.
When I first registered in here, I expected many things to be moderated more strictly or some outdated disproven topics to be removed already. But it was this tolerance and openness (aside from the fact that many competent and skilled people are in here too) which kept me in here. As a consequence I've learned lot's of things, and others will too. This relaxed way of moderation may attract disproven or dumb devices as well but they will diminish over time anyways.
I agree with you about the moderation here. I have been a Moderator on many topic areas now for about 3 years and, I can tell you that most of my duties involve re-sizing photos as to not mess up the page width. I have seen posts that blast Stefan and this forum and yet, they go un moderated. This is a credit to Stefan and how he runs this place.
Now, we do not put up with spam bots and obvious flame wars. But, really, the moderation here is, I think, the best it can be.
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on July 17, 2011, 11:49:43 PM
I agree with you about the moderation here. I have been a Moderator on many topic areas now for about 3 years and, I can tell you that most of my duties involve re-sizing photos as to not mess up the page width. I have seen posts that blast Stefan and this forum and yet, they go un moderated. This is a credit to Stefan and how he runs this place.
Now, we do not put up with spam bots and obvious flame wars. But, really, the moderation here is, I think, the best it can be.
Bill
Indeed. I agree. Hat's off to Stefan :)
Quote from: EMdevices on July 17, 2011, 12:06:10 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen
I have now been convinced that these videos by RomeroUK are fakes, and I want to thank wattsup for persisting and having patience with me as I worked through the evidence. I just did not want to accept they were fake and wanted to give Romerouk the benefit of doubt, but facts are facts. This has really been a test of gullibility, and I have failed. But that's OK, I'll be more critical next time, I hope!
How they were faked.
1) Video 1 was faked quite easily by supplying the output rail directly from the input. I should of acted on my instincts earlier when I noticed that his output voltage was the same value as his input voltage.
2) Video 2 was faked by taking these same wires supplying the output rail (wire-X), down through the table cap to a hidden battery, just like wattsup has shown.
3) Video 3 is not proving anything, it's just a spinning rotor.
snip
Sincerely,
EM
Good post EM, doesn't seem to be many other options.
Having built this (and many more over the years) and seeing first hand the night and day difference between romero's and mine this work by wattsup and others is the most logical explanation yet, that I have seen.
People want to believe... look how many still supported mylow, even after the string was shown. There were many a heated battle calling down the "non-believers". Same thing again.
"You will only get it after months of tuning" has been used over and over by Bedini and Hector, et al, to distance themselves from the angry mob.
Ron's rule, "When exact information necessary for a replication is deliberately withheld... then the chances of it being a scam go up exponentially"
Ron
Yep.. if it was a real ou device, others would have been able to replicate and get ou from it.. this fine tuning stuff is bs.. there isn't anything special about the RomeroUK build that it would be impossible to replicate. I don't like it when people lie about having a self-runner!! RomeroUK = Mylow II
How can you say that the fine tuning stuff is bs? People simply underestimated how important this part is. (I did not underestimate it and that's why I wrote a short rant 2 months ago, why I wouldn't even try to replicate). This assumption goes hand in hand with Romero suggesting not trying to replicate at this stage, because he knew it was a roulette.
Anyways, IIRC somebody else showed in a youtube video that minimally changing the position of the magnet on the back of the cores results in a brighter or darker lamp. Now you could assume that you tune each coil-magnet in a way the lamp looks brightest, but you don't know if this is the correct way to tune. If you go pure maths then there are almost endless combinations possible to tune with 18 magnets (don't forget combinations which have some magnets removed...). I therefore think that Romero had a huge portion of luck to get a decent result and which explains why Romero said he didn't fully understand the effect. The only way to get something out of it is to isolate the effect, which is difficult which this arrangement though. I think in some post Romero actually confirmed that he will try to achieve this. Maybe a setup with less coils would help too, don't know.
Quote from: EMdevices on July 17, 2011, 12:06:10 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen
I have now been convinced that these videos by RomeroUK are fakes, and I want to thank wattsup for persisting and having patience with me as I worked through the evidence. I just did not want to accept they were fake and wanted to give Romerouk the benefit of doubt, but facts are facts. This has really been a test of gullibility, and I have failed. But that's OK, I'll be more critical next time, I hope!
How they were faked.
1) Video 1 was faked quite easily by supplying the output rail directly from the input. I should of acted on my instincts earlier when I noticed that his output voltage was the same value as his input voltage.
2) Video 2 was faked by taking these same wires supplying the output rail (wire-X), down through the table cap to a hidden battery, just like wattsup has shown.
3) Video 3 is not proving anything, it's just a spinning rotor.
So when you had enough of tweaking and can't get that dynamo "tuned" just right, than perhaps you might want to consider the truth. RomeroUK told us quite clearly it was faked and even apologized. It really was not his fault, he was just playing a joke on the one guy that was on his forum, but than this was brought to Stefan's attention and it got promoted to a wide audience. After his confession, Mr Sterling showed up with the legal accusations and questioning, and Romero became scared and afraid of legal action, so he changed his story and invented a suppression story, and just so his conscience won't bother him any longer, he says he will no longer talk about the dynamo. He also hates to see people getting banned from the forum because they say his device is faked, because he knows it is, and his conscience is bothering him.
So please, let's all assure RomeroUK that everything is ok, and that we accept him here without any hatred and animosity. He is a very knowledgeable experimenter and does good work as you can see. Besides, everyone is free to experiment at his own risk on these forums, and you can't be liable for others decisions. After all he did not even claim OU in the videos, just simply made a video. It is us who interpreted the video as OU.
Sincerely,
EM
PS, as an example, in Video 1 we see that wire-X that wattsup talked about, and how it comes to the input side. This was such an obvious fake. In video 2 this same wire is routed through the table hole, just like he showed.
Very good EMdevices, BUT. I already established that there is not hidden wires going to the table's cap on the second video. So your theory and watssup does not hold water.
I also tried the input wire directly to the output rail and guess what IT DOES changes things dramatically. One must try and see the dynamics of it. Now that I DID try it I know that Romero may indeed know that and was using it with a purpose but not to fake.
IF the hidden wire is really going through that table's cap I want to see videos and close up shots of it that I COULD not see. I actually even created a series of short videos showing that there IS NO wire in that table's cap.
short video one: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=477
short video two: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=478
Fausto.
Guys, think for a moment please.
it is not about fake or not. We arecalling ourselfs EE or experimentalist or even better lover and pursuers of OU, WE should look at the evidences first. Not conjectures of what I think or what you think.
There is no conclusive proof (as proof as one can accept the same video as OU) that there are hidden wires. IF there is really proof of it we have been doing a horrible job at showing it.
I am one of those guys that debunked Mylow (piece of Sh***** - that even burned my Youtube channel with copyright violations). I also did believe that guy on the beginning but I was (just like Watssup) looking very closely to the videos trying to find a "proof" of falseness and I did find it. I showed very clearly on my videos his stupid hidden wires. I still have the video on my computer.
Unfortunately in those series of videos from Romero I can't find where is the flaw!!!
I'm not trying to be in his side or anyone's side. I am looking for OU and evidences of it. Either way.
So please, show me the evidence of the fake. I have studied those videos like "heroin addict looking for veins" but I have not found the problem.
Fausto.
ps: debates about this kind of things on the correct place is very healthy. :)
Yes Tommy is correct people, please stop all your efforts on overunity because it is impossible and you guys are wasting your time.
Also the backside of the moon does not exist because we can't see it. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise! And don't show me photos of the backside, because photos can be faked!
Quote from: plengo on July 18, 2011, 08:08:01 PM
Very good EMdevices, BUT. I already established that there is not hidden wires going to the table's cap on the second video. So your theory and watssup does not hold water.
Fausto.
You proved nothing of the sort. You ignored, willfully, the
fact that the support rod blocks the view of THE VERY WIRES IN QUESTION, then said "Case Closed."
Sorry to rant, but this is what happens when 'moderators' block the healthy exchange of energy, by one-sided policies.
The attached images are from "@none."
again, since you CENSORED that poster and others. You do not MODERATE as much as you
censor from what I have seen...such is why you should resign, since you -then leave up insulting and mocking attack posts AS LONG AS THEY ARE AGAINST A CRITIC-. Wattsup is subjected to ad hominem childish attacks, and they remain. It's -ridiculously unfair-. And shows 'moderation' and 'freedom' to be illusion here, in that thread at least. You only have freedom to speak your mind when its Pro-BELIEVER or anti-critic, otherwise, forget it.
The 'research only' mask that gets hidden behind as reason for removal of posts, is just a red herring and demonstrably false logic given the whole thread is about the device and talks about it, not just -how to do it-.
Yeah, it's great and 'healthy' to have all this posted down here in the cellar, where nobody reads it. ;)
Quote from: plengo on July 18, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Guys, think for a moment please.
it is not about fake or not. We arecalling ourselfs EE or experimentalist or even better lover and pursuers of OU, WE should look at the evidences first. Not conjectures of what I think or what you think.
There is no conclusive proof (as proof as one can accept the same video as OU) that there are hidden wires. IF there is really proof of it we have been doing a horrible job at showing it.
I am one of those guys that debunked Mylow (piece of Sh***** - that even burned my Youtube channel with copyright violations). I also did believe that guy on the beginning but I was (just like Watssup) looking very closely to the videos trying to find a "proof" of falseness and I did find it. I showed very clearly on my videos his stupid hidden wires. I still have the video on my computer.
Unfortunately in those series of videos from Romero I can't find where is the flaw!!!
I'm not trying to be in his side or anyone's side. I am looking for OU and evidences of it. Either way.
So please, show me the evidence of the fake. I have studied those videos like "heroin addict looking for veins" but I have not found the problem.
Fausto.
ps: debates about this kind of things on the correct place is very healthy. :)
Please tell why, if it is real, it hasn't been replicated? There is nothing special about Romero's build that makes it impossible to replicate, yet no one has. So you can see how it is hard to believe it is real.
Quote from: plengo on July 18, 2011, 08:20:16 PM
Guys, think for a moment please.
it is not about fake or not. We arecalling ourselfs EE or experimentalist or even better lover and pursuers of OU, WE should look at the evidences first. Not conjectures of what I think or what you think.
There is no conclusive proof (as proof as one can accept the same video as OU) that there are hidden wires. IF there is really proof of it we have been doing a horrible job at showing it.
I am one of those guys that debunked Mylow (piece of Sh***** - that even burned my Youtube channel with copyright violations). I also did believe that guy on the beginning but I was (just like Watssup) looking very closely to the videos trying to find a "proof" of falseness and I did find it. I showed very clearly on my videos his stupid hidden wires. I still have the video on my computer.
Unfortunately in those series of videos from Romero I can't find where is the flaw!!!
I'm not trying to be in his side or anyone's side. I am looking for OU and evidences of it. Either way.
So please, show me the evidence of the fake. I have studied those videos like "heroin addict looking for veins" but I have not found the problem.
Fausto.
ps: debates about this kind of things on the correct place is very healthy. :)
Fausto,
To your credit you have run a tight list and encouraged many to attempt a replication of romero's device. This is good.
However, you seem to have a blind side when it comes to actual evidence as seen in the videos.
The three videos each have an explanation which you seem to deny. This evidence doesn't go away with your denial!
A case in point of your focused thinking is your recent scope connections drawing.
When I pointed out the obvious ground interconnections you simply discarded my input and changed your drawing to something different! Yet with no clear explanation to the group that you had done this, implying that my advice was irrelevant, or stupid.
Yet even with the revised drawing you will still have ground loop artifacts in your scope pictures. For a precise view you (generally) can only run one channel at a time, unless the other channel is on an isolated amplifier... or share an identifiable common ground.
Kind regards,
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on July 19, 2011, 10:54:40 AM
Fausto,
To your credit you have run a tight list and encouraged many to attempt a replication of romero's device. This is good.
However, you seem to have a blind side when it comes to actual evidence as seen in the videos.
The three videos each have an explanation which you seem to deny. This evidence doesn't go away with your denial!
A case in point of your focused thinking is your recent scope connections drawing.
When I pointed out the obvious ground interconnections you simply discarded my input and changed your drawing to something different! Yet with no clear explanation to the group that you had done this, implying that my advice was irrelevant, or stupid.
Yet even with the revised drawing you will still have ground loop artifacts in your scope pictures. For a precise view you (generally) can only run one channel at a time, unless the other channel is on an isolated amplifier... or share an identifiable common ground.
Kind regards,
Ron
i_ron, I have not ignored you man. I am still looking into the spikes thingy. I am listening to everyone on this matter. Don't start speculating in what I am doing, please.
I am not blinded by anything. I am looking the thruth.
Fausto.
Quote from: Artist_Guy on July 18, 2011, 10:32:21 PM
You proved nothing of the sort. You ignored, willfully, the fact that the support rod blocks the view of THE VERY WIRES IN QUESTION, then said "Case Closed."
Sorry to rant, but this is what happens when 'moderators' block the healthy exchange of energy, by one-sided policies.
The attached images are from "@none." again, since you CENSORED that poster and others. You do not MODERATE as much as you censor from what I have seen...such is why you should resign, since you -then leave up insulting and mocking attack posts AS LONG AS THEY ARE AGAINST A CRITIC-. Wattsup is subjected to ad hominem childish attacks, and they remain. It's -ridiculously unfair-. And shows 'moderation' and 'freedom' to be illusion here, in that thread at least. You only have freedom to speak your mind when its Pro-BELIEVER or anti-critic, otherwise, forget it.
The 'research only' mask that gets hidden behind as reason for removal of posts, is just a red herring and demonstrably false logic given the whole thread is about the device and talks about it, not just -how to do it-.
Yeah, it's great and 'healthy' to have all this posted down here in the cellar, where nobody reads it. ;)
Artist_Guy,
yes I remember removing some of your posts on the "wrong" thread. I am not removing from here, guess why, because this is the correct thread for this kind of discussion. This is called, categorization, organization NOT discrimination dude.
I see you are loaded with arguments against me. Let me go slow.
Those pictures you are showing are not demonstrating anything for sure. I went to the videos where those pictures are taken and closely studied them. I even created a short video (previous post) showing that they are only 3D tricks of the viewer. The wire you seem to show going to the cap IS NOT GOING TO THE CAP.
In one of the short videos, if you watch repeatedly long enough, you will see that the wire you think is going to the cap is actually going to the foremost coil, not the cap.
I am not using the power as moderator to limit anyone but keep things in place. This is the thread for debunking Romero's motor not the other thread. Why don't you get that?
Do me a favor. Go to the short video that I created, watch them, many, many, many times until you see that that black wire is going to the foremost coil (your fourth picture). The first picture is just a trick of 3D in peoples mind. Studying the video closely one will se NO wire going to the cap. Just pictures is not enough because they are tricking you.
The short videos do a better job showing that.
Fausto.
I would think that this is more or less a mute discussion as to is it a fake or not ,or does it have a wire or not and to what purpose.
with a big enough field at the proper frequency it could be done without wires adding power to the system ,and even be done with a voltage envelope with any vibration.
single wire power or otherwise so without a spectrum analyzer or the like it is a mute argument.
in the end there will be those who go on searching and those who will stop and argue that these type of energy devices cannot be made as the physics they embrace support.
i am in the other camp with Carl Sagan because without some means of energy cycling we will never get off this rock we call earth and we are doing such a great job of taking care of it that we may not be around much longer.
for every failure there is a success and that is how i see this device hoax or not.
Martin
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 12:22:48 PM
Just pictures is not enough because they are tricking you.
The short videos do a better job showing that.
Fausto.
That is quite humorous... a video to prove or disprove a video! Is that not an oxymoron?
Nope, afraid wattsup's technique in capturing these JPGs using Naevious, virtual dud and then Snaggle is about as good as one can get. And this jpg evidence is collaborated by the running behavior and measurements of the machine, running on 3 volts, no RPM change when a load is applied, not the slightest change when loaded or unloaded, beyond belief, as NO vehicle has been put forward to explain this anomalous behavior.
Now try this on for size Do you believe a liar? Romero stated quite clearly that the device is a fake. But then various people put forward the claim that this was a lie, in reality the machine is working as originally claimed!
But you can't have it both ways... either he lied that the device worked or he lied that it didn't work. All this establishes is that he is a liar.
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on July 19, 2011, 03:46:36 PM
That is quite humorous... a video to prove or disprove a video! Is that not an oxymoron?
Nope, afraid wattsup's technique in capturing these JPGs using Naevious, virtual dud and then Snaggle is about as good as one can get. And this jpg evidence is collaborated by the running behavior and measurements of the machine, running on 3 volts, no RPM change when a load is applied, not the slightest change when loaded or unloaded, beyond belief, as NO vehicle has been put forward to explain this anomalous behavior.
Now try this on for size Do you believe a liar? Romero stated quite clearly that the device is a fake. But then various people put forward the claim that this was a lie, in reality the machine is working as originally claimed!
But you can't have it both ways... either he lied that the device worked or he lied that it didn't work. All this establishes is that he is a liar.
Ron
That's a great argument. First you destroy the possibility of being true, second you give more value to the "previous" picture than if the picture is indeed the true.
Look, on my short video (or series of pictures) one can see that there is no hidden wire. That by itself is enough evidence that there is no hidden wire. This is not a question IF Romero's machine is true or not. It is quiet irrelevant.
It is about if "this evidence" can be used as the proposed argument: there is or not hidden wires ON THOSE PICTURES.
If you search for OU like you just described you arguments against mine, oh boy, you will never find it. It is missing a lot more in you than you think.
Evidences are only good to their truthfulness. They do not speak of the whole but only of itself. If the pictures shown are in a aggregation not being consistent so it may be because they are, guess what, inconsistent. One picture only will not demonstrate the hidden wires. It can be many 3D view tricks of the mind here. You must look at them all so that you can really see it.
Now, the question is: Are you willing to really invest your time into this matter or just take the easy "sitting in my chair" and lets other decide for you?
At least I did my diligent work in demonstrating that in that second video there are no hidden "visible" wires anywhere.
Fausto.
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 06:32:40 PM
snip
Look, on my short video (or series of pictures) one can see that there is no hidden wire. That by itself is enough evidence that there is no hidden wire. This is not a question IF Romero's machine is true or not. It is quiet irrelevant.
snip
Now, the question is: Are you willing to really invest your time into this matter or just take the easy "sitting in my chair" and lets other decide for you?
At least I did my diligent work in demonstrating that in that second video there are no hidden "visible" wires anywhere.
Fausto.
Fausto,
No, it does not "prove" any such thing. It merely means the segments you have chosen do not show hidden wires.
I have built at least two different versions of this dynamo and have tried nearly all the hair brained schemes presented on the list. The simple answer is none preformed in a manner shown in romereo's videos.
Ergo... it is either a hoax or romero is hiding the invention of the century.
Neither scenario would endear romero to me.
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on July 19, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
Fausto,
No, it does not "prove" any such thing. It merely means the segments you have chosen do not show hidden wires.
I have built at least two different versions of this dynamo and have tried nearly all the hair brained schemes presented on the list. The simple answer is none preformed in a manner shown in romereo's videos.
Ergo... it is either a hoax or romero is hiding the invention of the century.
Neither scenario would endear romero to me.
Ron
Oh good we are getting somewhere. Did you see my short videos? they show the cap clearly with no wires. How can the wires be there on the same video on a different segment of the video????
This is called: text out of context. Those single pictures "looks like" a wire. IF this is true it should have more pictures just like it on the same video, which there is none. It is the same as saying that ONLY ONE PICTURE with lots of photoshop filter to make it look like something else. I am not saying anyone manufactured anything, but I am saying those pictures are very misleading when looking at the WHOLE group of evidences. The whole group of pictures ARE NOT MATCHING, so I must allow doubt to this evidence and therefore look at it as not enough proof.
Now, if Romero's motor is fake or not is another question. People not being able to replicate does not help either in disproving validity. Not everyone can play soccer like "Pele" or "Ronaldinho" or "Massias", although many watch soccer and even play.
If this was in a court room this evidence would be full of doubt and the jury would not vote for it as more than circumstantial evidence, if not invalid.
I think I AM a real critic here. I have my belief system BUT I am only allowing evidence (including the ones I find on my experiments) be the judge of the reality I perceive.
Fausto.
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 08:24:46 PM
Oh good we are getting somewhere. Did you see my short videos? they show the cap clearly with no wires. How can the wires be there on the same video on a different segment of the video????
This is called: text out of context. Those single pictures "looks like" a wire. IF this is true it should have more pictures just like it on the same video, which there is none. It is the same as saying that ONLY ONE PICTURE with lots of photoshop filter to make it look like something else. I am not saying anyone manufactured anything, but I am saying those pictures are very misleading when looking at the WHOLE group of evidences. The whole group of pictures ARE NOT MATCHING, so I must allow doubt to this evidence and therefore look at it as not enough proof.
Now, if Romero's motor is fake or not is another question. People not being able to replicate does not help either in disproving validity. Not everyone can play soccer like "Pele" or "Ronaldinho" or "Massias", although many watch soccer and even play.
If this was in a court room this evidence would be full of doubt and the jury would not vote for it as more than circumstantial evidence, if not invalid.
I think I AM a real critic here. I have my belief system BUT I am only allowing evidence (including the ones I find on my experiments) be the judge of the reality I perceive.
Fausto.
@Plengo:
I've been using, and also writing graphics software for well over a decade (almost 2). Filters, gamma corrections in particular as have been used almost exclusively for any closeups, do not introduce new wires into the equation, nor create them where they are not, they only compress or expand the dynamic range that is already there.
You say there is only one image about this, but there are about 3 unique time stamps (not the same angle) that I can find that show the same Wire X's in question there in umbrella plug territory.
If Mylow's thin lines, barely visible, were conclusive...how can wires going into the table be fiction? They are demonstrably not coil wires. You maintain they are coil wires?
It would be good to get on the same page about what you are maintaing are the facts with your short videos...
Tell me if I am correct in my interpretation here:
You are supposing that the two (black) wires leading in from lower leftscreen into the right and going near what looks like the cap, near the support rod are the same Wire X's in question, shown in the image you contest, which you can see for yourself in video #2, at 8m41s - Yes - No -
And...you are supposing those two wires which your short clip shows, -are the coil wires for the drive coil, next to the Wire X's in question, seen at the same time stamp, 8m41s? - Yes - No -
You are supposing that they are not coil wires for the drive coil, but for the gen coil - Yes - No - yet, they are the ones we keep saying are Wires X? Yes - No ?
Thanks for additional information.
EDIT: Is your lone supposition with this short video only that no wires are seen going to the cap, which is something which ignores that the very placement of the rod (and also terminal block of a coil) obscure the view where they would -be seen- if not behind the rod? The angle in that short of yours would preclude seeing the wires, given they are behind the rod.
The rod sits on the edge of the cap, you can't see the part where the wires are. What you call 99 percent visible is about 95 percent as to diameter (whatever portion the rod is of that)...
NOTE: in the image, the corresponding lines to each coil pair are shown going from bottom, to top match
Artist_Guy
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 06:32:40 PM
snip...
Now, the question is: Are you willing to really invest your time into this matter or just take the easy "sitting in my chair" and lets other decide for you?
snip....
Fausto.
Over the years I have followed I_rons posts as he's involved himself in many different threads and experiments.
I maintain a high regard for I_rons attitude and aptitude in his research efforts, and know that he keeps an open mind until empirical evidence sways his opinion one way or another.
The least correct thing you could possibly infer about I_ron is that he is an armchair researcher, or that he lets the mob make his decisions for him.
He builds precision models, (which takes a lot of time, money and effort) and he willingly tries every possible experiment relating to a given subject, that others may suggest, or that he has conjured up himself.
I have always known him to share his findings, and to present his data in an open and transparent manner, whether it confims or contradicts a given expectation or theory.
Cheers
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 06:32:40 PM
(snip
One picture only will not demonstrate the hidden wires. It can be many 3D view tricks of the mind here. You must look at them all so that you can really see it.
Now, the question is: Are you willing to really invest your time into this matter
(snip)
Fausto.
I invested an hour or more looking at Video #2 for your other angles. I have more than just this.
Explain the red wire at the base of the threaded rod. Its two ends connect where, and where?
I'll tell you: one end connects up top to a point on the FWBR rail (easily shown). The other goes down into an upraised portion or slot in the umbrella cap.
Robert (AG)
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 08:24:46 PM
Did you see my short videos? they show the cap clearly with no wires. How can the wires be there on the same video on a different segment of the video????
Fausto.
@Fausto
I saw them, and knew them to be wrong the minute you posted them, but you have more than once said anything else would be deleted, so I stuffed the counterpoint back then (your 'case closed' post), and that's why I got grumpy in my post here earlier. Sorry about that.
Anyhow to answer that question of yours up there:
It's easy, when they are blocked, by a rod, from the angle you have chosen as carefully as Romero did in the original video, to prevent our seeing them? You can't see what you think you don't see, since it's blocked by both a terminal block , and the rod.
See the sight line. See the shadow. The wires * in question * are behind the thing making the shadow, the rod.
:(
Robert (AG)
The 8m 40s capture from video 2 posted by Artistguy is IMO proof enough that Romero faked self-running. The Romero's of this world would be well advised not to underestimate the forensic skills of their fellow forum members!
Hoppy
I think everyone here forgot that he ran the thing suspended in the air. That's good enough for me!
Quote from: plengo on July 19, 2011, 08:24:46 PM
Those single pictures "looks like" a wire. IF this is true it should have more pictures just like it on the same video, which there is none.
(Snip)
The whole group of pictures ARE NOT MATCHING, so I must allow doubt to this evidence and therefore look at it as not enough proof.
(snip)
Fausto.
@Plengo
:D
2 more hours...later. Here are multiple views, same wires. Tracing both black, and red wire X, per your specification.
What now?
You can say that the two wires in question are not attached to anything on the one end at the table hole...to say...a battery below...but you cannot say they are not there. Only where they go into the table is 'hidden' otherwise they hide in plain sight in the confusion.
Please explain Wire X Red and Wire X Black, and their need, and connections, if you disagree. ???
AG
Quote from: Super God on July 20, 2011, 05:52:38 AM
I think everyone here forgot that he ran the thing suspended in the air. That's good enough for me!
It would be good enough for me also IF he had showed all of the device.
What you have to look at is the top end of one rod that is never shown in the video. Why is it never shown?
Ron
Quote from: Artist_Guy on July 20, 2011, 09:05:23 AM
snip
You can say that the two wires in question are not attached to anything on the one end at the table hole...to say...a battery below...but you cannot say they are not there. Only where they go into the table is 'hidden' otherwise they hide in plain sight in the confusion.
Please explain Wire X Red and Wire X Black, and their need, and connections, if you disagree. ???
AG
Good work Robert, thanks for your research.
Then the answer to "where do the wires go", is in the way it runs, which is contrary to all the replications to date.
Ron
Quote from: hoptoad on July 19, 2011, 09:44:15 PM
Over the years I have followed I_rons posts as he's involved himself in many different threads and experiments.
I maintain a high regard for I_rons attitude and aptitude in his research efforts, and know that he keeps an open mind until empirical evidence sways his opinion one way or another.
The least correct thing you could possibly infer about I_ron is that he is an armchair researcher, or that he lets the mob make his decisions for him.
He builds precision models, (which takes a lot of time, money and effort) and he willingly tries every possible experiment relating to a given subject, that others may suggest, or that he has conjured up himself.
I have always known him to share his findings, and to present his data in an open and transparent manner, whether it confims or contradicts a given expectation or theory.
Cheers
Wow, made my day, thanks HT.
Funny thing is, the way things turn out is not my choice. I would love to build a device and have it work, "as advertised".
But starting with Garry Stanley and working up to Lawrence Rayburn to Thane Heins, I have come across certain anomalies that are not explained by their hypothesis. When I have spoken up I have been attacked and maligned, called every thing from a know nothing, to a thief.
But I did speak up.
Thanks again for your recognition, and support.
Warm Regards
Ron
PS: not trail blazing here, just offering my support to wattsup, EM, AG and others.....
@All
Why is this thread entitled "Arguments against Muller design". There is no argument about the Muller design. There is an argument about Romero faking three videos, period. Actually it is no longer an argument but a fact. Why is Muller mentioned here? Even the other thread called "Muller Design". Should have been called "Romero Design". Why are you guys always confusing the two.
@Plengo
I can't believe I am reading what you are saying. You think I tricked those images. Never in a million years would I do that. Do you think I would risk my name here for a furty wheel. Wow. Why would I do that? Just think again please before you repeat such nonsense. This is not the way to fight your argument. You will need much more then that to go against so much proof. Word of advice. Don't bother and save yourself lots of unnecessary work for nothing because in the end, you will realize you are wrong and wonder why you wasted so much more time.
When @EM said about the same things you are saying, I again re-posted and re-explained to him and it is located here, and, he quickly understood where he was going wrong.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15571#msg15571
Artist-Guy has copies of images from @none here (the ones you removed) plus his own here;
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15618#msg15618
Video 3 is covered here:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15479#msg15479
then a little further down here;
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=827.msg15491#msg15491
Please understand that if you do not have a youtube conversion program and if you are not using a software like VirtualDubMod, you are looking at the standard video. With VDM I have 30 frames per each second of Romeros' video to view. In can zooom in on one inch if needed. Those images are in about 3-4 frames, so you are talking about 1/10th of a second in youtube time. Romero must have looked at his Video 2 and 3 many times to make sure he did not show his funny X Wires but even he could not see them if he was just looking at it with the standard video players.
Go to the links above, look at the images. Each has a frame number. Just divide the frame number by 30 and you will have the youtube video seconds at which the frames were taken. Divide by 60 for minutes, etc. Maybe once you know that it will be more easy for you to see it.
When I say you cannot see it, I should specify cannot without paying extra attention to the actual small time frame. Just look at those images, then look at the video at frame/30. But first make sure you are looking at the same video. There is Video 1, 2 and 3.
wattsup
I tried to discover the images myself with a program called video image extractor and yes at 8:40 I can see the wires going down the table :(
AND did these super thin wires attach when he also WALKED around the room carrying the prototype running and NOT losing speed (which would occur if a battery was used)? Where are your screen shots of this. This motor has more magnets on each side THAN the rotor. This concept is simple, it creates a magnetic vortex and the design also cancels back EMF. The vortex adds to the spin which is very efficient due to the phasing. There is no reason think that the motor could not be over COP seeing the two principles used together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJ62NF9iYQ&feature=related see this for the vortex proof and join forum and download Romero/Muller Generator pdf to see phasing design that cancels out the EMF. No "free energy", it is provable concepts at work here.
Quote from: Hope on July 21, 2011, 09:55:05 AM
AND did these super thin wires attach when he also WALKED around the room carrying the prototype running and NOT losing speed (which would occur if a battery was used)? Where are your screen shots of this. This motor has more magnets on each side THAN the rotor. This concept is simple, it creates a magnetic vortex and the design also cancels back EMF. The vortex adds to the spin which is very efficient due to the phasing. There is no reason think that the motor could not be over COP seeing the two principles used together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJ62NF9iYQ&feature=related see this for the vortex proof and join forum and download Romero/Muller Generator pdf to see phasing design that cancels out the EMF. No "free energy", it is provable concepts at work here.
Look at my post on previous page shows where to see the Video 3 proof.
Remember Video 3 was only 1 minute and 40 something seconds long. Very short video so small battery is only what is required. Others have already show the wheel will turn with one drive coil pair and only 4 volts.
wattsup
I'm not saying the device is a fake, but on the image it looks like there are going 2 wires down the table.
Regards,
@plengo (sorry for long post)
Just to continue from my last post so there is no ambiguity.
Actually I wish you well because I know your position is not an easy one. I know it's not easy to moderate. I know we have been through some pretty crazy things on this forum. No one really thought about doing a full inspection of Romeros videos before guys started to build like crazy. The problem is Romero just created this whole story, MIB, no more device, changes direction, comes back to the forums, makes his own forum, it all sounds like a big drama. You also have to understand something. After his Video 1 came out, Romero quickly said his video was faked, but no one believed him. No one. Everyone thought it was a plot to get the heat off his back and not get hounded by so many questions. So we don't hear from him for a while. If that was the end of the story, we would eventually have found the X Wires in Video 1 going directly to the battery and this whole story would have quickly come to an end.
But no, instead of leaving it at that, he then comes back and puts up Video 2 then Video 3. This is where I would simply say his actions where from that point on premeditated and technically he could be held totally responsible for anyone starting a build after that date onward. This was now totally intentional deception. With his first video, I can understand that it may have been a bad joke he tried to play, but Video 2 and 3 were intentional after the fact. That is not good.
When you say this would not hold up in a court of law, I think you are again mistaken. There is enough proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Romero faked all three videos. His X Wires follow a pattern that is consistent in all three videos, that is to say where ever his Red Wire X points, there is a battery hidden. In courts, you would be surprised how many cases are won with only circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence. In video 1 there is direct evidence, but in video 2 and 3, there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Romero did the same tricks. That is all that we need to know to summarize the Romero story.
The Red Wire X.
Video 1 goes forward to the battery on the table.
Video 2 goes back and down and funny thing, that's where the hole is.
Video 3 goes behind the rear drive circuit and funny thing, in video 1 we see the two circuits transparent and the normal backs of the circuits. Then in Video 3, the right side of the rear circuit is blanked out and funny thing, that is where the red wire and black wire Xs are. Add that to Romeros obvious intentional over avoidance of filming the rear drive circuit is enough.
Also, have you asked yourself if the biasing magnets are of such grand importance in his wheel design, how come his wheel functioned with no problems at all with a good number of biasing magnets missing and the wheel was pumping out so much juice without feeling any form of drag? I mean if they are so important, why does his wheel work with so many missing. Wow. You already know that once drag starts to move in, it does not care about biasing magnets. The stronger will prevail all the time. It is all a crazy show my friend and we will have to concede that Romero won the first round but has now lost the last round.
I also know there are guys with wheels that still want ideas to get them going. Since Romero faked his videos, this only means you can now add or modify what you want to the device since the device is now open territory to all. So you no longer need to stick to his specific design, or, if you stick to his design, you can now ask yourself why his did not work and what other ways you can do to make it work. I am sure Romero is also learning new stuff on the forums (because his guidance is so vague) and I am sure he still has his wheel and is still tinkering with it. It is too bad most guys have glued their coils because the future will probably mean removing them and having them reversible. Each one of those coils has to earn its place and direction one by one by testing. I had already prepared a long post on how to move forward but it was pointless to post since everyone is only looking at Romeros videos and making sure they have the same build as him. So asking guys to consider AOAO, cascading coils, and other techniques just went to the wayside and all I got was unwarranted insults.
Anyways, the only real thing left is to advance with newer and more logical ideas.
wattsup
Hint: With one mounted generator coil that you will call "A" and one generator coil in our hand called "B", connect them in parallel with long enough wires so the rotor magnets do not affect coil B if you placed a compass beside it. You will have a dual drive coil loop. Now make the rotor turn slowly by hand while you put a compass next to the coil in your hand. Place the compass to the left or to the right, to the top or to the bottom of that B coil and see how the compass reacts when you make the rotor magnet move across the mounted coil A. DOES THIS GIVE YOU ANY IDEAS FOR CASCADING COILS?
Example: OK, now turn the rotor so one magnet is at TDC of the mounted generator coil A. Now look for another mounted generator coil "C" where the rotor magnet has just passed the coil C while the first magnet is still at TDC of A. Now imagine A and C are connected like the above paragraph. When the rotor passes A, it does three things to A. It generates 1A when it approaches A, then TDC then 2A when it leaves A. This generates in C the three events as well. Now if C is turned to the side facing the rotor magnets so that when A is at 2A, it produces in C the field polarity that is in repulsion to the rotor magnet polarity that just passed the C coil, what do you think will happen? This is the starting point to work with cascading coils. It is definitely not an easy task to map properly but the payback may be worth the effort. So imagine as a result a rotor turning without a feed supply having all passive drive coil off pairs that when you give the rotor a good spin, it continues to turn on its own. That is the limit I would see possible with a Romero design. Self turning but not producing any output because the motive force and the wanted output coils or on the same radius so there is no leverage advantage. Now if you wanted to produce output after that stage, you would put more rotor magnets closer to the shaft and put gen coils on the plates closer to the shaft also, so that the outer coils that produce the motive force will have greater leverage with them to turn the inner gen magnets and produce an output. Definitely not an easy task and not for the faint of heart. It will require tremendous discipline, experiments of all variables, recording of results, analysis of results, etc.
Quote from: wattsup on July 21, 2011, 12:36:03 AM
@All
Why is this thread entitled "Arguments against Muller design". There is no argument about the Muller design. There is an argument about Romero faking three videos, period. Actually it is no longer an argument but a fact. Why is Muller mentioned here? Even the other thread called "Muller Design". Should have been called "Romero Design". Why are you guys always confusing the two.
snip
wattsup
wattsup,
My thoughts exactly! I was going to bring that point up in a later post.
Your posts like a breath of fresh air, main list now up to 300 posts and not a shred of useful 'romero build' information.
Thank you for all your hard work and due diligence!
Ron
Quote from: wattsup on July 21, 2011, 12:36:03 AM
@All
Why is this thread entitled "Arguments against Muller design". There is no argument about the Muller design. There is an argument about Romero faking three videos, period. Actually it is no longer an argument but a fact. Why is Muller mentioned here? Even the other thread called "Muller Design". Should have been called "Romero Design". Why are you guys always confusing the two.
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who notices that.
Quote from: Hope on July 21, 2011, 09:55:05 AM
AND did these super thin wires attach when he also WALKED around the room carrying the prototype running and NOT losing speed (which would occur if a battery was used)? Where are your screen shots of this. This motor has more magnets on each side THAN the rotor. This concept is simple, it creates a magnetic vortex and the design also cancels back EMF. The vortex adds to the spin which is very efficient due to the phasing. There is no reason think that the motor could not be over COP seeing the two principles used together.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUJ62NF9iYQ&feature=related see this for the vortex proof and join forum and download Romero/Muller Generator pdf to see phasing design that cancels out the EMF. No "free energy", it is provable concepts at work here.
Edit: I was thinking of the suspended from a string video, sorry
@Watssup,
friend don't be upset with me. I am here researching just like you. I did not say your faked anything. Please re-read my previous post. I only said it is a possibility to explain things in pictures BUT I don't think you did it or anyone. I am glad posts are in black and white and you can re-read.
I did look at the videos using VirtualDub and other tools and do see the 4 frames you are talking about and all the pictures taken comes pretty much from. I do see the 2 wires going to the cap, it is very obvious BUT I am not convinced this is not a 3D trick in the mind (like I said already before). I am still revisiting this video and carefully looking at the cap and all the shades and colors around that "post in front of the cap" to see if indeed those wires go there or same place else.
It takes lots of time. I do say that I do see more "red" wires going under the transparent bottom stator that could be where those "X" and "Y" wire go but I am not affirming it because, again, it takes enormous amount of time to do this. It is irrelevant if those wires have no logical place to go. I only care if they really go to that cap. That could be really a conclusive evidence of probable source of energy to run that motor, if the wires go to inside that table's center cap.
So I do value your (and others) work and do see all the arguments. I am not calling anyone lier or fake or anything like that.
As a moderator here (luck me - I got this hot potato :)) I have to keep things in place and organized. The thread name is wrong (point taken - I will try to rename soon). Places for the correct posts must be observed and respected.
I am not against debunking any OU possible device, actually I think it is very healthy. Without critical thinking we are simply lost. Just non sense repeating the same statement is also not useful (aside from annoying).
I will for now unsay my "case closed" and will say "case open" because I will have to study this "cap wire hidden" further but this is not all.
Concerning the motor itself, my experiments and other (on the other thread) has demonstrated very good valuable progress and interesting effects. That by itself is worthy every effort to get to OU and abandon OIL depression. So nothing lost in researching, actually is fun.
Bias magnets are actually making a huge difference in output power and RPM increase, very interesting but you will only know if you do it yourself. That means you would have to spent a good amount of money and build this "fake" machine, right?
Look, it is always EASY to say things are impossible, they can't break the current known laws of physics or they are fake. The valuable path is the one taken with solid work, good research and a open mind EVEN IF YOU THINK IS IT NOT TRUE. That is a paradox that not many can accept. I am on that latter camp.
Even if you PROOF that that video is fake I will still reluctantly study it eliminating every possibility of falsifiability for acceptance of the argument. See? Not an easy job when one see all the possibilities to explain a fact! It will not be one little fact that will make me give up such a noble effort. I wish many here were like that to the end. I bet we would get a lot more done for humanity and for my kids.
cheers,
Fausto.
@Wattsup & Plengo
Good points... thanks!
First more than hats off to you ALL for your sincere efforts.
So some how he got hold of a wire that was beyond gauge 56 (which is the smallest commercially produced). It carried current well beyond its rating and its stronger than any I have ever used? WOW what a fake?? It is the same principle as the pure magnetic motor shown by Green (is that a fake too??) and it also uses natural magnetic forces to cancel back EMF. Why would this NOT work?? You should have put those ideas into your minds to make a motor you could believe in instead of nay saying this motor. So even without a vortex this motor should be the MOST efficient that we have EVER seen but you don't credit it as that at all. Then a total disregard is shown toward the link showing a PROVEN magnetic vortex effect that is easy to reproduce (I even used a secondary builders youtube proving it and not Greens Camelot motor) What of these effects, even if you can't agree they are working in this motor here why can't we use these two principles and gain from them? Just suspending a Greens vortex making ring above many high efficiency motors should create COP > 1. Why don't we try these concepts instead of rushing past them? You could have used the audio tract from Romero's walk around video and proved to yourself the motor never lost speed as it would with a battery attached. But instead you declare here it was a battery concealed, and then try to fortify your statement with legal gibberish that is applied only by your argument as relevant. Who knows if this motor is a fake or not, but at least the principles can be shown as the best ideas combined to date. And you all are good people I know as we have all worked together for a long time on this project to reach OU. Lets NOT throw out what is relevant with this design, magnetic vortex action combined with motor efficiency.
Hope
Edited for human kindness
Off to Lynden, WA for a few days, see Days for Girls.org and please if you can donate a bit to their great cause.
Celeste their director addressed the African symposium and they changed national tradition not to "cut" marrying women any longer, which was a gross mutilation of their natural bodies. Her new non profit org is helping women not to lose 7-9 days a month in solitude for their lives.
A new hocus-pocus - "Arguments against Muller design" :o
Main thread transmuted to just Muller Dynamo ::)
Who was against Bill Muller ??? he never declared his dynamo runs self - some others did,
Miserable knack to wash off shame,
cheers,
khabe