Overunity.com Archives

This is another self looped Generator claim from Sterling Allan
Will be on Smart Scarecrow show this week
http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/05/sterling-to-show-self-looped-energy-machine-at-gbem/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/05/sterling-to-show-self-looped-energy-machine-at-gbem/)


Should be hoot
Kind Regards

I hear the company has offered to put one on Sterlings house aswell.
He could put it right next to all the others he was suppose to get???.
I always keep watch though,as maybe one day Stirling will actualy stumble onto something that work's. He keeps on trying,and that dose need some thumbs up.But i think this will be just another 6/18

Hi Mark,

I have probably found the patent application (yes, an application, not a granted patent) what the inventor, Charles Pierce could not find due to his moving as Sterling wrote... It is US20080143302A1, Electrical Power Genration System, and can be read here:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080619&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2008143302A1&KC=A1&ND=4 

In fact there are earlier patent applications by him on the same setup: WO2008076972 (A2),  WO2008076972 (A3) and TW200843300   

Greetings,  Gyula

Here is my prediction: at no time during any demonstration will all the batteries be completely disconnected.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 05, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
Here is my prediction: at no time during any demonstration will all the batteries be completely disconnected.

What I find interesting is that they say there is a patent on the device.  My question is:  How was a patent awarded when the patent office will not award patents on over-unity devices?  (According to a patent attorney).  Did they provide a model to the patent office so the patent office can see proof of the device?

Quote from: Liberty on August 05, 2013, 11:08:27 AM
What I find interesting is that they say there is a patent on the device.  My question is:  How was a patent awarded when the patent office will not award patents on over-unity devices?  (According to a patent attorney).  Did they provide a model to the patent office so the patent office can see proof of the device?

Just saw the comment from gyula that the "patent" is really an application for patent.  I guess they have a filing date established now.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 05, 2013, 10:32:34 AM
Here is my prediction: at no time during any demonstration will all the batteries be completely disconnected.

You can take that to the bank.

So here we have a high torque starter motor being used to get the big heavy flywheel rotating up to speed. Then once speed is reached,the weaker motor takes over. The flywheel shaft is conected via belts to TWO generators,which supplies the P/out.
Mmm ,sounds like a chas Campbell machine to me lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QD2Whs_LxA

Quote from: gyulasun on August 05, 2013, 09:59:23 AM
Hi Mark,

I have probably found the patent application (yes, an application, not a granted patent) what the inventor, Charles Pierce could not find due to his moving as Sterling wrote... It is US20080143302A1, Electrical Power Genration System, and can be read here:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080619&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2008143302A1&KC=A1&ND=4 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080619&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2008143302A1&KC=A1&ND=4) 

In fact there are earlier patent applications by him on the same setup: WO2008076972 (A2),  WO2008076972 (A3) and TW200843300   

Greetings,  Gyula

Thanks for that info I will ahve a look
Mark

Quote from: Liberty on August 05, 2013, 11:08:27 AM
What I find interesting is that they say there is a patent on the device.  My question is:  How was a patent awarded when the patent office will not award patents on over-unity devices?  (According to a patent attorney).  Did they provide a model to the patent office so the patent office can see proof of the device?

A) How was a patent awarded?

In this particular case, no patent was awarded (it remained an "application" which never made it to a "patent grant", see the link which Gyula provided in his post http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080619&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2008143302A1&KC=A1&ND=4 (http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20080619&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=US&NR=2008143302A1&KC=A1&ND=4)  )

B) No patent for an OU-device?

This is true, the patent office will not allow any claim that a machine puts out more energy than is put in. So, you simply do not claim that. And you will see that all "patented OU-machines" do not claim OU. One writes "very efficient power generation" or something similar. Most patents about "OU machines" simply do not state anything about input and output energy.

C) A patent does not mean "it works"!

There are an endless number of patents about "OU-machines", but none of them actually works (or you would see this machines everywhere). The patent office does not check whether the "device" or "method" or "thing" claimed in a patent application works or whether the stated facts are true. The patent examiner only checks whether any statement obviously contradicts conventional knowledge. Example: you can not claim that helium binds to copper, but you can easily claim anything about a chemical compound which nobody else has ever described before.

The patent office only checks whether anybody has described something similar before and that all claims/statements do not obviously contradict conventional knowledge.

D) Bringing a device to the patent office:

The "patent procedure" is a "written procedure", meaning that you can not bring a device or "thing" to the patent office. But you could send measurements done by a recognised scientific institution or lab.

E) What does it mean if something is patented?

Technically speaking it might mean nothing (although many "things" described in patents are real). The meaning is a "legal aspect". A patent means that you can not exploit it commercially for 20 years without the consent of the patent holder. But most patents are given up much earlier than after 20 years. One abandons a patent by not paying the yearly feed to the patent office. The yearly fee becomes higher the longer one keeps a patent. One can not hold a patent longer than 20 years (after filing date).

So, if you get a patent for nonsense, nobody else is allowed to commercially use this nonsense as long as you pay the yearly patent fee. But after the patent expires (for sure after 20 years, mostly much earlier) everybody can profit from this nonsense. (You may replace "nonsense" by "some thing" in the last sentence.)

F) General wisdom:

And in this strange world many people profit a lot from nonsense. But you can profit from nonsense without the patent system. So, if you know some nonsense, profit from it and spare yourself the costs of a patent.

A good way to profit from OU-nonsense or any nonsense is writing a book, the more mysterious the better. A grand theory of everything will help. Do not bother about proof, "believe" is the thing. Even better is a good link to the spirit world. Secret knowledge (which you are not allowed to reveal) is tops. Enough people will buy it.

Only amateurs need patents.

No kidding, powerful companies do not need patents, they simply infringe and their lawyers do the rest. Powerful companies file a lot of patents because the stupid people believe in them.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on August 05, 2013, 12:11:10 PM

F) General wisdom:

And in this strange world many people profit a lot from nonsense. But you can profit from nonsense without the patent system. So, if you know some nonsense, profit from it and spare yourself the costs of a patent.

A good way to profit from OU-nonsense or any nonsense is writing a book, the more mysterious the better. A grand theory of everything will help. Do not bother about proof, "believe" is the thing. Even better is a good link to the spirit world. Secret knowledge (which you are not allowed to reveal) is tops. Enough people will buy it.

Only amateurs need patents.

No kidding, powerful companies do not need patents, they simply infringe and their lawyers do the rest. Powerful companies file a lot of patents because the stupid people believe in them.

Greetings, Conrad

Words of wisdom spoken in jest.  ;D

Just this fact is already making this look like a Black comedy:

Sterling:

QuoteOn my way from the airport, I'll be picking up twenty four 500-Watt halogen lamps so we can demonstrate the system being able to power a load of 12 kW, plus some inductive loads (e.g. motors), during the duration of Gary Hendershot's SmartScarecrow (http://smartscarecrow.com) show, which is live each week beginning at 9:00 pm Eastern time. We'll use a clamp-on amp meter to show the power going to each light.

So the claimant presumably has never tested his setup with a legitimate load?  Why should Stewart have to buy him light bulbs?

It's mind boggling.

The article by Sterling seems to indicate a patent has been awarded (as opposed to a patent application) but in doing a fairly thorough search of the US Patent database I don't find anything by him related to power generation.   Maybe it was done in another country?   
If Sterling is going to put one on his house and Mr. Pierce is building 3 of these systems for others it should be fairly obvious in short order whether they are valid OU or not.   I still believe there is something to the flywheel based motor generators such as Watson built and showed long ago at the conference in Colorado Springs as well as the Chas Campbell device and some others I've come across over the years.   There is one in Russia that is ready to sell apparently but in trying to contact the inventor I don't get any response.

The same patent application on Google:

http://www.google.com/patents/US20080143302

Quote from: e2matrix on August 05, 2013, 12:36:39 PM
The article by Sterling seems to indicate a patent has been awarded (as opposed to a patent application) but in doing a fairly thorough search of the US Patent database I don't find anything by him related to power generation.   Maybe it was done in another country?   
...

Hi e2matrix,

May I draw you attention to my humble post above: Reply #2  where you can see the patent applications outside of USA.
Maybe you are cross with me...  8)   or negligent?  ???

greetings, Gyula

@MileHigh
I do believe it will be a comedy. If the info is correct it is basically a kinetic storage device which a flywheel is design to do.
I am not sure how it became a free energy device. The patent g=has been around for a number of years, however this could be a latter variation. I been waiting for the next Yilditz or Magna Coaster
Kind Regards
Mark

Quote from: markdansie on August 05, 2013, 01:14:01 PM
@MileHigh
I do believe it will be a comedy. If the info is correct it is basically a kinetic storage device which a flywheel is design to do.
I am not sure how it became a free energy device. The patent g=has been around for a number of years, however this could be a latter variation. I been waiting for the next Yilditz or Magna Coaster
Kind Regards
Mark

Hi Mark,

What's up with Magna Coaster?  I see an article from Sterling that he has shipped 3 units?

Liberty

The US and the WIPO applications were all made in 2008 initially. Here's the history of the US 2008 application:

Patent application number is 20080143302 and was abandoned in 2010 due to non-response.


Transaction History
Date    Transaction Description
05-19-2010    Email Notification
05-19-2010    Mail Abandonment for Failure to Respond to Office Action
05-14-2010    Aband. for Failure to Respond to O. A.
11-10-2009    Electronic Review
11-10-2009    Email Notification
11-10-2009    Mail Non-Final Rejection
11-05-2009    Non-Final Rejection
06-03-2008    Information Disclosure Statement considered
03-20-2008    Information Disclosure Statement considered
06-03-2009    Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
06-19-2008    PG-Pub Issue Notification
06-17-2008    Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU
06-03-2008    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
06-03-2008    IFW TSS Processing by Tech Center Complete
06-03-2008    Reference capture on IDS
06-03-2008    Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
03-20-2008    Reference capture on IDS
03-20-2008    Electronic Information Disclosure Statement
03-20-2008    Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
03-18-2008    Application Dispatched from OIPE
03-11-2008    Sent to Classification Contractor
03-11-2008    Filing Receipt - Updated
03-11-2008    Application Is Now Complete
02-26-2008    Additional Application Filing Fees
02-26-2008    A statement by one or more inventors satisfying the requirement under 35 USC 115, Oath of the Applic
01-15-2008    Notice Mailed--Application Incomplete--Filing Date Assigned
01-15-2008    Filing Receipt
01-04-2008    Cleared by OIPE CSR
12-21-2007    IFW Scan & PACR Auto Security Review
12-17-2007    Initial Exam Team nn

So... do we think he pursued, and finally had granted, one of the other applications made at the same time? I suppose it's possible, I didn't look up the numbers for those.



I hope somebody asks him to show his last six months of electric utility bills to his home.

And Magnacoaster! Fat people are harder to kidnap! What a hoot. You can bet he's still on the grid, hiding up there in Kitchener.

Quote from: MileHigh on August 05, 2013, 12:26:47 PM
Just this fact is already making this look like a Black comedy:

Sterling:

So the claimant presumably has never tested his setup with a legitimate load?  Why should Stewart have to buy him light bulbs?

It's mind boggling.

What do you mean? What better load could you possibly get than light bulbs? The power dissipation of them is written right on the box. If they light up, bingo, you have your 500 watts measurement. Simples.

And of course the clampon ammeter is the preferred method of measuring _power_ to your bank of 500 watt bulbs.


As long as you are sure that there isn't any Cheese Power in the system, that is.

@liberty,,there are literaly thousands of fully patented overunity devices.how many of them were realy overunity we,l never know but it seems the patent offices nowadays will rubberstamp anything as long as you pay your fees.

@conrad..powerful companies file patents to prevent other powerful companies from copying them.even giants have enemies

Quote from: Liberty on August 05, 2013, 01:24:37 PM
Hi Mark,

What's up with Magna Coaster?  I see an article from Sterling that he has shipped 3 units?

Liberty

So you read it as PESWiki in an article and that makes it real LOL
Mark

Quote from: markdansie on August 05, 2013, 05:44:05 PM
So you read it as PESWiki in an article and that makes it real LOL
Mark

Thanks for the update.  Hope all is well with you and yours.  You have a nice site.   :)

Best wishes,

Liberty

Quote from: gyulasun on August 05, 2013, 12:54:49 PM
Hi e2matrix,

May I draw you attention to my humble post above: Reply #2  where you can see the patent applications outside of USA.
Maybe you are cross with me...  8)   or negligent?  ???

greetings, Gyula

LOL Gyula,   Never cross with you .     I just missed reading carefully.   

Depending on the mass of the flywheel you get into Einstonian physics of time relativity.
Spinning creates a G force which slows time in the G force field. Bruce De Palma's system was based on this
principle. Recently Hoagland appears to have been  threatened and has gone back on his original hypothesis.
It's a murky desperate NWO Cabal morass. Some people are desperate to hide technology which
would free the world from the banksters.
So if you are travelling at ten miles per hour and enter a slowed time field, your speed automatically becomes higher in the field.
The energy gain is from time  itself. (Which you control in the slowed down field).
Military people have known this since the beginning and automatically spin every projectile they can, because it travels faster and further and more accurately.

Just another bit of information on this new Free energy machine
Chuck said he's been working on this for 25 years, and he said: "I've been generating power for 15 years," but not continuous. The longest he's run these has been for a few days.[/size]
Kind Regards[/size]

15 years but never tested it on a light bulb load!  It's amazing!

Also, don't halogen lamps need a halogen lamp controller?

If they do the test inside they had better work out a heat extraction strategy otherwise they are going to become barbecue chickens.

Note that this test with 24 500-watt halogen bulbs requires some serious wiring and setup ahead of time.

I can already smell some "fails" in the air.  Just a little bit of subliminal suggestion to Sterling or intentional omission of discussing various issues beforehand can set up a test fail ahead of time.

I have some suggestions, perhaps others do also?

1.  Didn't realize that halogen bulbs require a controller - fail
2.  My extension cords and power bars are insufficient to drive all 24 bulbs - fail
3.  I don't have the proper breaker to put between the light bulbs and my generator - fail
4.  Those bulbs get really hot and we can't figure out a way to support them properly - fail
5.  We forgot that the test room would get too hot within five minutes - fail
6   What?  You didn't bring a metal rack fully wired up to hold the bulbs with wiring and sockets and fuses? - fail
7.  Whoops, my generator output voltage is not correct for the bulbs and I don't have the right transformer - fail
8.  I don't have the right gauge of wire to carry the high current for 12 kilowatts out - fail
9.  Oh jeez, I didn't think about hiring an electrician! - fail

Sterling "picking up some halogen bulbs" before arriving at the inventor's house just doesn't make any sense.  That's Sterling for you.  Setting up a 12-kilowatt continuous "burn" using 24 500-watt light bulbs is not a trivial thing at all.  It would be dangerous if you did not do it right.  You need a very serious setup.  It's the equivalent of seven 120-volt 15-amp circuits.

Note, Sterling has not mentioned anything about this issue at all.  There is a decent chance that the inventor has not said anything about this issue at all because Sterling said nothing.  He doesn't want to jinx it.  It smells like a fail.

@milehigh ..now i can see why you are regularly assualted here at overunity.com,mr condescending.i think after 25yrs that guy knows all that shit.

@MH
why would you want to mess up a good story with detail.
I think TK should give a tutorial on measuring load with a clamp meter.
Rosemary should also be consulted especially on measuring battery capacity and charge.


However your concerns MH may not be warranted. After all as quoted in the story at Free Energy News:
He said he had 3 nuclear engineers look at it, "blew them away". "We don't know how you did it." "You can't use Newtonian physics, maybe Maxwell's demon and quantum physics with some Einstein physics."[/size]
He also said that the technology has been third party tested by ESA (http://www.esa.int/ESA), which does testing for NASA. They have that report in writing, which states that it is definitely self-sustaining. They ran their test for ten weeks at 10 - 12kW continuous.[/size]

[/size]
Speaking of Data I think this might be some data that Sterling should be concerned about.[/size]
http://www.trafficestimate.com/pesn.com (http://www.trafficestimate.com/pesn.com)[/size]
Kind Regards
Mark

It is condescending and I apologize for that with some qualifiers.  Sterling has been doing this for 11 years now.  He should know that doing a test requires preparation and possibly requires others to help you if you don't have certain skills.  So if Sterling mentioned that he is working with someone and has a plan and the two of them are in discussions with inventor and they are emailing pictures back and forth and working out a test plan, etc, then it would be a different story.  The person that needs to fix Sterling's oversights is Sterling.  It's arguable that a scolding might drive the message home so it sinks in more.

So you can easily take my 'lemon' posting and turn it into lemonade.  Look at the issues I have raised, I could have posted the same thing a la lemonade.  The real message is for Sterling to prepare for this test as best he can in the next few days.

I think that you see 500-watt halogen lamps in those standing floor lamps.   They are long thin tubes with terminals at the ends.  The BEST way to manage the heat for doing a burn test would be to buy the standing floor lamps themselves!

MileHigh

@ MH
I thought you could make a pretty good chicken rotisserie with tow rows of 12 lights and cook at least 6 chickens at a time, or until the battery ran down or the flywheel stopped.
This reminds me a lot of Chas Campbell's little project.
Kind regards

I read the article up to the patent.  I looked at the clips.  I saw those small halogen lamps that they use in construction.  They would be perfect for the 24 halogen bulbs.  However, I don't expect that there will be 24 construction lamps at the demo.  They must be pricey.

I would still like for the test to be successful and by that I mean executed properly.  Someone will calculate the amount of energy in the batteries and get the run time.  Would Sterling be prepared for an all-nighter?

Going back to the article:

QuoteChuck said he's been working on this for 25 years, and he said: "I've been generating power for 15 years," but not continuous. The longest he's run these has been for a few days.

Why just a few days?  It doesn't make sense.  This is almost (or is) a smoking gun.  Anybody that engineered and built a system like this would want to test it with long duration tests.  This is reality showing you a reality distortion field.

QuoteThe thing I'm most excited about is that they offered to build one for me to power my house. Chuck said he has built 17 of these so far, each of which have been a little different than the others, and all of which have worked.

Presumably some people are using these systems if the statement is true.  But nobody is aware of this?

You can make up your own damn minds!  (c) Gary Hendershot

@milehigh..mm yeah it is a whopper,i see some sugar in ur lemons now yeah sorry.

I just hope that Sterling has the foresight to get whomever videoed Rose's last demonstration to serve as the videographer for this one.  No tripod required, just a cheap cellphone and a lot of coffee before turning on the camera.  An earthquake would also be helpful to aid in even more camera movements.  Come on, we don't really need to see (in focus) wire connections or components, all we need to see is some lights light up for a minute or so.  It does not matter at all how many batteries are used, or their size, if the lights light up, then Sterling is vindicated.  Extension cords leading out of the test room?  No big deal, ignore that as it has nothing to do with O.U. or the patent.  I am glad that Sterling will be able to get off of the grid finally with his unit.  I hope we get a follow-up on that from him.

Bill

I am looking forward to Gary's show and his response to what happens, or does not happen.

Here is a video of the device running. Take note of the power measurements the guys come up with. P/in is 18 amp's(no voltage given) so i asume still in looped mode.P/in amps is measured with a clamp meter across two wires at a time???. Output is a new formula,where 230 volts@ 3000 watts now means you have 30 amp's.
P/in=230 volts(?) at 18 amps=4140 watts
P/out=3000 watts.
No to mention that they actualy have a 4000 watt load. I think they need a calculator.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0caf06Vqco

I have been sent a few emails asking if I actually believe there is any chance this is real. Absolutely not. Other than it is a kinetic storage device[/color][/size]
As for the statement on PESWiki "This makes the 25th group I know of that has independently arrived at some kind of variation of this approach." [/i]There is no third party or peer reviewed evidence to back this up and is typical of the misleading statements made by the author.[/color][/size]

How is it possible to take these people seriously, after that video?

Either I am being deliberately insulted, MyLOWed, by the people who made that video... or they are completely and utterly incompetent fools.

But there is some skill evident in the construction of the apparatus, so it is difficult for me to believe that they are the utterly incompetent fools they seem to be.

That leaves one alternative: MyLOW.

Either way....

Transcript of Video
youtube.com/watch?v=t0caf06Vqco
Charles Pierce's MoGen demonstration. I presume the first speaker is CP and the second is "Jerry". [Comments in square brackets [] are mine.]

C: OK Jerry this is the input amperage. [clamps meter around two parallel white wires from a bundle of at least 4 similar white wires]
C: If you could see it [meter reads ~18 amps, after much shaky camera work]
C: It fluctuates between 18 and 20 amps. It's about 18.3 right now.
J: So that's the total cost of energy it's drawing right now.. it's about, it's under 20 amps.
C: Yeah. It's 18 Amps in. OK. If you look at the gauges... we are at 230 volts, 60 Hz... [camera carefully avoids showing the leftmost meter indicating Zero Current]
C: And what we've got here is a fifteen hundred watt heater ... so that's fifteen. We have two one thousand watt lights, so, that's twenty five and we have one, five hundred watt light, which is thirty. [sic]
'K that's thirty thousand, er thirty watts itself. Three thousand watts. That's three thousand watts, or thirty amps. And we're ah, we're taking in, about nineteen amps. So... ah....
J: So right now we are at a fifty percent gain, nowhere near maximum, but that's what we have on here right now, that's a cost of twenty amps, and we're putting out thirty amps.
C: Right.
C: OK, our computer is at twenty-five... ... Hertz [camera shows box displaying "F 25.00" with first zero flashing] which is ah, divah [?] ... the motor's running a hunnert and twenny Hertz, so we're at one-quarter power, on our motors.
C: The internal gauges are showing 230 volts [again showing the v and f meters and avoiding the ammeter showing zero current]
C: As you can see, if you can tell, we're ah .... ..... accelerating quite a bit here [2:44.... the sound of the machine is perfectly stable, no acceleration in the sound]
C: Soon as I find the light... .... .... [much shaky camera work] .... there's our light.
C: Trying to show you the flywheel in motion, I think you can see that. That it is running. [duh.]
C: At twenty five Hertz that's ah, that's one quarter of ah, of our motor's ah, capability, so we can ah take it up, with more load. But I can only find three thousand watts to plug in at the moment, we'll ah, we'll ah plug up some more here.


Great job, guys! You have demonstrated everything I really need to know about you and your machine.

If they are in the USA... that heater is not plugged into a 230 volt supply, I'll wager. It is a 120 Volt heater and it is plugged into a 120 volt supply.... because its control panel is lit up normally.

@ TK
I feel for the guy paying for Sterling's trip. At least it was not via crowd funding this time.
Kind Regards

The project will be officially relabeled Mylow 2


Mark E posted these comments (none of us can on PESN) @ freeenergynews.com
I thought they were worth re posting here
Kind Regards
.
How many simultaneous unbelievable things can we pack into one story?[/font][/color]
He says that he's had this change the world machine perfected to the point that it could run his house during a major black out in 2003, but he hasn't found financial backing.Ditto and he saw his patent application rejected six years later because he failed to respond to the non-final rejection that required he prove his device worked in order to proceed.He claims to have a doctorate in "Thermonuclear Reactors". No accredited university offers such a doctorate. Doctorates are available for instance in "Nuclear Physics", "Nuclear Engineering", etc. He claims a doctorate in science from a university that never offered science degrees.He offers quotes from supposedly knowledgeable engineers and scientists that betray gross ignorance: "You can't use Newtonian physics, maybe Maxwell's demon and quantum physics with some Einstein physics." Maxwell's Demon is an imaginary gate that passes gas molecules selectively between two chambers. No knowledgeable engineer would refer to Maxwell's demon when talking about a motor <=> generator machine. No nuclear engineer would refer to "Einstein physics". This is the kind of ignorant made-up stuff we see with people like Pete Sumaruck and his change the ramp rate resistor in a motor controller "zero-amp" technology.He claims to have a test report that validates the system has run for many days at a time, yet he says the longest he ever ran it was for a few days.Ditto, but he hasn't found financial backing.He makes physically ignorant statements such as: "Once I get the flywheel to its optimum velocity, it only requires 10% as much energy to keep it going." That statement makes no physical sense. Spinning up a flywheel to a given speed requires an amount of energy particular to the flywheel characteristics and the speed. But maintaining the speed requires power. One cannot compare energy to power without imposing a time constraint.He invokes things like the Schumann Resonance without the foggiest clue as to even what it is: "The Pierce Arrow is a vehicle that Tesla modified to run from energy from the environment. Chuck thinks it involved the 8 mega-Hertz magnetic field of the Earth. The Schumann Resonance is an electromagnetic cavity effect in the earth's atmosphere up to the lower boundary of the ionosphere that resonates at about 8 Hz: a million times slower than the 8 megaHertz he quotes.This smacks of Mylow all over again. There are many huge red flags. [/font][/color]

I can only echo the sentiments.  In one of their clips they aren't using the right electronics phraseology, a dead giveaway.  A doctorate in "Thermonuclear Reactors?"  LOL  That is right out of the John Rohner school.  So why is Sterling even going?  You would think that by this time he would open the blinders a bit and read the comments, solicit opinions, etc.

All the world's a stage.

P.S.:  There is a missing word in the previous posting, "But maintaining the speed requires power" should read, "But maintaining the speed requires no power."  I am convinced that my keyboard sometimes eats characters when I type.

@ MH:

My keyboard not only eats some characters, it sometimes rearranges others.

@ All:

Has anyone asked Sterling if Mylow is going to be there?  Perhaps Mylow is acting as some kind of consultant in this affair?  I read that Sterling is bringing the light bulbs but, was he asked to pick up some mono filament fishing line as well?  Perhaps a hook and a sinker would also be appropriate.

They should sell tickets to this.

Bill

@Pirate
the sad thing is there are thousands who want to believe so hard they will hang of every word Sterling says.. What is even more disturbing, logic and reason can not convince them otherwise.
@MH
Well Sterling gets another trip and all is funded by another backer. The crowd funding and donation option started to dry up.


One thing is for sure, it beats watching TV this is great entertainment and watch the number Smart Scarecrow pulls in on Thursday.


Kind Regards


Mean time for your amusement if your into electric aviation


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/07/electric-aviation-takes-another-step (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/07/electric-aviation-takes-another-step)

@markdansie..actualy,a maxwell demon is any device which contradicts the 2lot.a magnet can be technicly termed a maxwel demon by allowing more molecular vibration in one direction than the other or more magnetic field in one direction than the other as long as it contributes to excess work on its thermodynamic cycles.the guy called rasa is intriguing with his magneto-tunneling device which allows high electrical resistance in one direction perhaps.

@MH: you , or rather Mark E. were right the first time. Maintaining the speed of any real flywheel at a constant value requires a constant supply of _power_ to offset the _power dissipation_ of the flywheel's bearing losses, air friction, eddy current braking, noise and vibration,  etc. This supply of power may be small for any given installation but it must be there if your flywheel is not to slow down.
Just as you say, the "10 percent less energy" statement is gobbledegook parroting without a time term, showing that the claimants either don't know their topic well enough to discuss it properly... or they are depending on their viewers to supply their own ignorance to the mix.

TK:

Yes indeed I was ignoring the friction.  Of course in the past we have discussed knowing the MoI and then just recording some ticks from a pickup or pickup magnets as the rotor spins down.  Then with a bit of number crunching you would know your unloaded (on the shaft) friction power vs. RPM.  Not going to hold my breath.

Meanwhile, from Sterling's blog:

Preliminary:

QuoteLoads Available

We plan to have around 15 kW of load total during the 2-hour demo (actually less time than that since the intro description will take a few minutes). Maybe at the end we'll push it to the full 17 kW.

We'll roll the aparatus to show that there are not wires coming up from the floor.

Pat couldn't source 20-Amp test strips, so we'll be limited to 15 Amps per strip (five 500-Watt bulbs), and with just 6 outlets on the device, we may be limited in how much we can plug in. I'm going to be telling Pat to try and source a heavy-duty power strip that can handle 45 amps (if they are available) to plug three of the 15-amp power strips into.

Yesterday:

QuoteArrangements are made to have Pat go to Chuck's place first thing tomorrow (6-7 am) morning to do a test run on the system with this load. (Won't be able to plug everything in because he hasn't yet purchased enough power strips (with proper amp rating to have 4x 500-W lights plugged in). There are only 6 outlet recepticals on the Regen.) Sterling jokes to Pat: "If an angel wakes you up at 4:00 am, then get up!"

Today:

Quote~10:15 am Eastern: Pat said he delivered the power strips to Chuck. He said that Chuck (who usually works through the night and then goes to bed around 10 am) is heading to bed, so they will do the dry run test this afternoon. Pat couldn't source 20-Amp test strips, so we'll be limited to 15 Amps per strip (five 500-Watt bulbs), and with just 6 outlets on the device, we may be limited in how much we can plug in. I'm going to be telling Pat to try and source a heavy-duty power strip that can handle 45 amps (if they are available) to plug three of the 15-amp power strips into.

A 15-amp 120 VAC circuit can only drive three 500-watt bulbs, not five.

So you are looking at the possibility that six 15-amp circuits will drive three bulbs each for a total of 9 kilowatts.

So the thing hasn't even started and we may have complications and we may already have a problem.  I don't want for there to be a problem but it's not feeling solid.  Shouldn't the inventor have had a load bank for a long time already to make his tests over the past 15 years???

It's frustrating if you do care and are rooting for Sterling and Mr. Pierce.

MileHigh

P.S.:  "Only six outlets on the device?"  C'mon, you have to wonder here.  You are telling me that this generator setup cannot support a proper power output hookup?   Can't you just wire a big breaker panel into it like you have in a house and set it up to output the full rated power, no muss, no fuss, no sweat?   Just pop in as many breaker modules as you need?

I don't care what the load is. What is the matter with these people? Look. The thing is supposed to be self-sustaining. So sure, do your wheelaround to show no hidden wires, go around to the house/shop/garage mains breaker box and pull them, to eliminate weird power transfer schemes. Then start it up, plug any load you like into it, like a 500 Watt bulb. Then....

-- DISCONNECT ALL THE BATTERIES--

If it keeps running, call me, right away, PLEASE.

If the inventor tells you he has a selfsustaining device, but he can't disconnect the batteries for some reason... put your wallet back into your pocket and just turn around and walk away, because you are being lied to.

Hi TK
they are going to disconnect the batteries once the flywheel is run up.
That leads to the bleeding obvious question, are they going to monitor the flywheel slowing down when they put the load on? And how?
Kind Regards

I agree 100% with TK..

we all know it won't happen... so might as well put the wallet away now

Well, once they disconnected the batteries I would welcome the opportunity to sit with that baby all night and into the next day.  Then a shut it down and then watch it being moved so that you can make sure it was not plugged into an outlet in the floor.  Bring along a super-bright flashlight to peer into all the cracks and crevices, and a stethoscope!  Also bring sunglasses.  8)

Quote from: markdansie on August 07, 2013, 08:23:36 PM
Hi TK
they are going to disconnect the batteries once the flywheel is run up.
That leads to the bleeding obvious question, are they going to monitor the flywheel slowing down when they put the load on? And how?
Kind Regards

Are you sure? What I read said that they would disconnect the _starter_ once it is run up.

If they do disconnect the batteries completely, and there's no capacitor bank, then it isn't going to run very long regardless of the load. That is _not_ a big sophisticated low-dissipation energy storage flywheel in there, it is a kludged contraption with belts and pulleys. Listen to it! It can't even get out of its own way.

If they are using 8 batteries and the 1000 CCA, 60 A-H guess is close to correct, then they should be able to run 15 kW of load for twenty minutes or so if they are running on batteries alone. Ballpark.

I think in the video they attempted to show a stroboscopic light illuminating a marker on the flywheel, but who knows. I would certainly demand that the RPM of the flywheel be monitored throughout the experiment/demonstration, by an optical tachometer in the hands of someone who knew how to use it.

Correct me if I am wrong here but, I think that the flywheel, not unlike the batteries, is just another energy storage device, only with drains due to air resistance and mechanical friction.  Whatever energy is imparted to the flywheel to spin it up and maintain its rpm, will be more than can ever be drained from it.  It seems to me that they would be better off just adding another battery and eliminating the flywheel.

Did I miss where they "claim" the extra energy comes from with this system?  I watched the video but, if not for TK's transcript, I would not have had a clue as to what was supposed to have been demonstrated.

I just hope that Gary's website provider's servers are ready for the load they will see once the show begins.  I have the time marked on my calender and my popcorn will be ready.  I just hope that Sterling plays this one straight.

Bill

Hi Bill
you are right
the fly wheel if connected to a generator will slow down as soon as you put some decent load on it, and you will never get more out than put in.
Sterling play it straight? Never he has ignored all of this good advice as he always does.
He has also taken money form an investor peddling this BS, when there is not one ounce of credibility. To be honest Sterling is not the innocent cheer leader he pretends. Look at all the people here who can not post there anymore. The only suppression is on his side.
I have on many occasions seen him straight out tell lies to teh public.
He biggest problem is omitting all the evidence and just presenting what fits his story. (how is Yiltidz going his last big thing and thirty reason why it works?)
This is Mylow 2. The deluded being examined by the insane.
Gary is ok, it brings traffic to him and he lets the reader make up their own mind.
Kind Regards
Mark

QuoteAug. 8, 3 am Mountain [GMT-6] update: as of 10 pm Eastern last night, Chuck reported a problem with his system, and as of 7 hours since then, he has given no further updates; so I canceled my flight. However, if he does get it going in time for the SmartScarecrow show tonight, and he has a functional webcam, he may yet do a demo tonight. Also another associate is presently scheduled to arrive Saturday night, and Chuck could do a demo for him, if he has his system running by then. -- Sterling

Have we made up our own minds yet?

Hey Sterling....

I think YOU need to hire a good consultant with a proven track record in evaluating claims like this one. Just to get a preliminary, go-nogo kind of evaluation, so that you and your principals don't waste time and money like you have been doing lately.

I know of one who has been in the field since 1999 at least, who has saved investors literally millions of dollars so far (details on request), and who is available for a reasonable consulting fee. And he has never once been wrong in his evaluations! No device that he has evaluated and turned down, has ever proven actually to be overunity! What's your track record in that regard?

Here, I'll give you this much for free:

This present fiasco could have been avoided by someone first doing a couple of hours of internet research, to find that there is no patent, there is no PhD from any accredited institution, there is no ESA report and the story that is being told is incredible. Stop right there, and demand that the claimant provide proof for the assertions made so far. If he cannot.... why go any further? Why schedule a demonstration, make airline reservations, get Hendershot all hot and bothered when the claimant is evidently lying from square one?
Once the claimant provides proof of the early assertions, particularly the ESA report, then we could do a live Skype call where the cooperative claimant performs some interactive tests and demonstrations, very simple, with rented test equipment if there isn't appropriate kit on hand. No site visit is yet necessary. If this phase is passed unequivocally, THEN one might be interested in making an airline reservation and doing a site visit. ONLY AFTER THIS SITE VISIT should public demonstrations, interviews, etc. even be talked about, much less scheduled!

Of course following this plan would mean that you don't get to travel around nearly as much, like to see Yildiz and have your little Alpine vacation at the expense of your fans. But if money is important to you or your investors at all.... they might do well to consider what I am telling you.

Remember this?
http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives (http://mrwaynesbrain.com/index.php/current-objectives)

QuoteOur teams are moving quickly (relatively), with the unlocking of the LLM to develop the Proof of Concept be it necessary.

LOL. He has nothing, never had anything, and won't ever have anything that works according to the claims he was making when Mark Dansie visited him. He does have ZEDs and TAZs and LLMs though. ROFLOL.

Same principle applies here. A few hours of internet research, some phone calls, and thousands of dollars of money and time would have been saved. No patent, no demonstration model, no credible statements from real engineers, no grad students from U of OK's engineering campus an hour's drive away.... no point in a site visit at all, much less two.

At TK
Mr Wayne still has not produced any data yet to convince me. The deal was always 2 days self running no inputs.
Mark
pS you do keep reminding me lol  i am glad I am not married to you.

 Yes Koala,
               you can't really believe the naievty of some of these people. A bit of
common sense combined with internet access can soon show up the flaws in
these ridiculous claims.
   The electric bus seems a better idea, get a bit of wireless charging involved
and we could have a winner.
  Just had a brief glimpse at ITER, anything worthwhile going to come from that?
            John.

Quote from: markdansie on August 08, 2013, 06:22:34 AM
At TK
Mr Wayne still has not produced any data yet to convince me. The deal was always 2 days self running no inputs.
Mark
pS you do keep reminding me lol  i am glad I am not married to you.

Me too. You're pretty cute, but there's just something about you that makes you not quite my type.  ;)

I'm just ribbing you at this point. Mister Wayne is quite the comedian, but he's also a master of misdirection and neurolinguistic programming. Just now he's figured out that there is more money in Free Energy cultism than there is in good old southern bible-thumping fire and brimstone preaching, but the required skill-set is exactly the same.

Sterling's Blog


Hopefully, that is how this ends, not with me having to cancel my flight, and you not getting it to run when you told me it was running, which is why I bought a ticket and put up these three pages in our news. You'll have a hard time recovering your credibility after this, as will I. What I was hoping to be a validation will turn to yet another case of egg on the face.[/size]
.[/size]
My question is "What Credibility"?

[/size]

Hi minnie
I don't do "big science" much these days, but I personally like the idea of using magnetic fields to control plasmas. Many people think that ITER is a big boondoggle waste of money. I don't know. I'd much rather that governments spent money on things like ITER than on things like Predator drones in Pakistan. For something like ITER, you'll never know until after the money is spent. But the payoffs would be huge if it works. It might also make for some spectacular failure modes, but nothing like what we've got to contend with at Fukushima.
Cheers, and I hope the duck is fattening nicely....
-TK

Some thoughts to chew on regarding self running devices that use flywheels :
"A flywheel may be used to supply intermittent pulses of energy at transfer rates that exceed the abilities of its energy source, or when such pulses would disrupt the energy supply (e.g., public electric network). This is achieved by accumulating stored energy in the flywheel over a period of time, at a rate that is compatible with the energy source, and then releasing that energy at a much higher rate over a relatively short time.
ONE BASIC ELECTRO-MECHANICAL METHOD (of many)

Continuously input Electricity (Force) from a known source, (Nature)
and
Continuously convert the Electrical Force to rotary Mechanical (Energy/Power), HORSEPOWER,
and
Continuously accelerate rotating Solid Matter (Develop Kinetic Energy/Power), HORSEPOWER,
and
The stored Energy/Power is then/now available for extraction and use as high pressure Mechanical (Energy/Power), HORSEPOWER impulses of timed duration, stronger than the original input,
now
Extract & Transfer Mechanical Energy/Power to Accelerate a second Solid Matter Flywheel.
Use a Mechanical Advantage to Develop additional Torque/Force to allow accelerating a greater mass of larger diameter at reduced RPM, (the greater mass and diameter develop more Kinetic Energy/Power, HORSEPOWER per RPM),
now
Transmit a timed short duration high pressure Mechanical Energy/Power impulse to a third Solid Matter Flywheel that acts as a Receiver, Storage, Transmitter,
now
Transmit a timed short duration high pressure Mechanical Energy/Power impulse to a fourth Solid Matter Flywheel that acts as a Receiver and MECHANICAL Prime mover with CONTINUOUS HORSEPOWER per second sufficient for a low RPM Alternator.

There you have it the method to obtain Electricity from Solid Matter in motion without consuming one drop of "fuel" as you presently think of "fuel".

To be used in a self sustaining electro mechanical power plant the electric motor and the alternator or generator cannot be coupled mechanically together.

Mechanical energy is what all conventional electric power generators require to produce electricity. Mechanical energy is Kinetic energy though I am fairly certain there are people who would like to think and argue to the contrary. Regardless of one's thoughts the fact remains that Mechanical energy has the ability to do work directly on other objects made of matter. Mechanical energy is also able to be developed and amplified using levers to produce differentials of either distance or force over time.   (info source backgauges.com)

Wheels are actually levers, and their energy is mechanical, and as such they DEVELOP Kinetic/Mechanical "energy" in time based upon the volume and density of the Matter they are made of and the distance each particle of the Matter moves in the space the wheel itself occupies in Space.

Solid Matter in motion used as "Fuel" develops Horsepower.   Think of a flywheel as a rotary lever.   

To be a self-sustaining machine there must be a minimum of four separate solid Matter OBJECTS IN MOTION, as fuel masses. (at least so far & for now) The energy input and output "fuel" masses must be MECHANICALLY ISOLATED from each other and FREE to move in Space on at least one plane.

There must be:

1. Continuous external input of Force/energy, which can be any suitable form: I.e.: electricity.

2. A Prime mover or movers capable of maintaining system Velocity.

3. Solid Matter being moved by Prime mover(s) and developing Kinetic energy exceeding the input energy per second,

4. A Mechanical method and means to extract, convert and transfer Kinetic energy between solid matter objects as high pressure Mechanical energy  pulses to develop/introduce non equilibrium into a system of inherent equilibrium,

5. A Mechanical means to split Time between Kinetic energy development, extraction and transfer of the high pressure Mechanical energy pulses,

6. A greater volume of matter in motion absorbing/receiving the Mechanical energy pulses at a Mechanical advantage, developing additional Kinetic energy and driving an electrical alternator/generator continuously.

7. And of course your ability to understand the one thing Generators/alternators require to function; continuous HORSEPOWER per second.
More
Doubling the downfall speed of mass quadruples developed kinetic energy output.
Doubling flywheel speed also quadruples kinetic energy output, which is available for work. 

A formula to solve/calculate HORSEPOWER DEVELOPED PER SECOND by Solid Matter objects in rotary motion, namely Flywheels used as Fuelwheels that are not consumed.

HP/sec = KE x .7376 x Rpm / 5252 / 550

KE (Joules), ~ .7376 (converts Joules to ft. lbs Torque), ~ Rpm (Revolutions per minute), ~ 5252 (constant per minute), ~ 550 (constant per second)

Here is how to solve/calculate Kinetic "energy" in Joules of a simple flywheel;

KE = 0.5 x Inertia x (V x V); for disk type; (and x 2 for ring type)

Inertia = .5 x mass x (radius x radius); ( Moment of inertia for disk type )

V = (rpm/60) x 2 x 3.142; ( converts RPM to radians per second )

With mass = m / 1000; ( converts grams to kilograms )

radius = d/2 / 1000; ( converts mm to meters )

Notice the E in KE, the mass of the wheel, and the V for velocity are all present. They are all that is in E = MCsquared.

More food for thought (same source):
OBSERVED ENERGY FACTS:
1. All Matter has potential energy, matter in motion develops Kinetic energy.

2. Less energy input is required per second to sustain matter in motion than is developed per second beyond the objects threshold
Velocity.

3. Kinetic energy of balanced solid matter objects rotating is available for use to do work as mechanical energy/horsepower.

4. Mechanical energy/horsepower torque can be transmitted, and or multiplied by leverage, gearing with an accompanying rpm
decrease.

5. Mechanical energy of reduced rpm with increased torque can move other objects, of greater volumes/areas of solid matter.

6. Secondary, greater areas/volumes of matter placed in motion develop Kinetic energy/horsepower in addition to all previous energy.

7. Mechanical energy is Kinetic energy at work.

8. Mass, Volume and Velocity determine its Magnitude.

SIMPLE PROCESS - OVER EFFICIENT DESIGN
Small electrical input to a motor, converting electrical to mechanical power,

Use the mechanical power to place solid matter in motion at velocity to develop KE equal to converted input power,

Use mechanical advantage to multiply/develop torque at reduced rpm,

Use the increased torque to place an additional greater volume of solid matter in motion thereby developing more KE, greater Inertia
& momentum.

Use another mechanical advantage to again multiply/develop more torque at reduced rpm, and use a mechanical disconnect from
previous rotating matter.

Use the increased torque to again place an additional greater volume of solid matter in motion thereby developing even more KE,
greater Inertia & momentum,

Use a final mechanical advantage to adjust/match rpm for output to an electrical power generator/alternator.

Understand, comprehend this process alone yields more HORSEPOWER output than input without burning one drop of extra fuel,
that is FREE ENERGY.

Understand this process does require a constant input of power, and its output cannot be used as the input. Don't believe - try it, you
will learn something.

WHAT IS HAPPENING
System A:
Input 1 receives electrical power/energy and converts it to mechanical power/energy known as horsepower.
Fuel/flywheel 1 develops Kinetic energy to match the horsepower F.L. requirement of the generator/alternator.
Output 2 generator receives converted energy of input 1 and developed energy of fuel/flywheel and converts those mechanical
energies to electrical energy for output, for use outside this system.

System B:
Input 2 receives electrical power/energy and converts it to mechanical power/energy known as horsepower.
Fuel/flywheel 2 develops Kinetic energy to match the horsepower F.L. requirement of the generator/alternator.
Output 1 generator receives converted energy of input 1 and developed energy of fuel/flywheel and converts those mechanical
energies to electrical energy for output, for use outside this system.

One more:  An ordinary electric motor with a properly sized solid Matter flywheel installed is doing the work of rotating it, and consumes less electrical power per second maintaining the Velocity of the flywheel than the Kinetic energy developed by the flywheel per second.
Are Mechanical advantages of basic machines real?

Can you name the three basic machines of classical mechanics/physics?

Has every possible use/combination of these machines already been done?

Quote from: e2matrix on August 08, 2013, 03:41:20 PM
One more:  An ordinary electric motor with a properly sized solid Matter flywheel installed is doing the work of rotating it, and consumes less electrical power per second maintaining the Velocity of the flywheel than the Kinetic energy developed by the flywheel per second.
Are Mechanical advantages of basic machines real?

Can you name the three basic machines of classical mechanics/physics?

Has every possible use/combination of these machines already been done?

@e2matrix:

Conventional theory says that a flywheel between a motor and a load costs additional energy (the additional energy cost is the friction of the fly wheel).

The advantage of a flywheel is that the load can consume for a short while a very high energy (by slowing down the fly wheel and consuming the energy stored therein). But after the short while the energy in the flywheel has to be replenished by the motor over time. The flywheel absorbs consumption bursts (but the cost is the friction of the fly wheel). So, there is practicality but no energy gain, even an energy loss.

There are some people who hope that very high turn rates of a fly wheel (more than 100.000 rpm) develop "unknown effects" which could lead to an energy transfer from "somewhere" into the fly wheel. The energy could come from the "ether" or from "the fabric of space" or from some other strange place.

So far these speculations could not be proven. But one thing is clear, at normal turn rates (up to 100.000 rpm) nothing unexpected happens. This is proven by  the many plutonium separation centrifuges which turn at 80.000 to 100.000 rpm and which have be inspected and measured carefully.

Also many gyroscopes in air planes and ships turn at about 70.000 to 100.000 rpm and they have been studied extensively because they are also of strategic interest.

NASA uses gyroscopes in almost all space vehicles and satellites (e.g. in Kepler) and they turn at these rpm rates in space and would exhibit strange properties outside the gravitational field of the earth. These high speed gyroscopes are so well understood that they can very accurately point these space vehicles in space.

So, the turn rates achieved by the people who claim OU in fly wheels are much to low to be of any interest. And to turn something at a higher rate than 100.000 rpm is a very difficult and costly thing way out of the reach of almost everybody.

Greetings, Conrad

with the flywheel comes stability so i think its intention in this scenario is to provide stable turning of the generator rpm in order to synchronize the system to get to a point where the theoretical excess energy is gained.

Quote from: profitis on August 08, 2013, 07:10:09 PM
....where the theoretical excess energy is gained.

Except with this, or any other arrangement of motors, generators and flywheels there is no excess energy to be gained even in theory.

I've read through all the 'theory' offered by e2matrix and can say most of it is absolute gibberish with no basis in reality it all.

It has some consistency to be sure. Like most over-unity researchers in this space they consistently confuse the terms POWER and ENERGY. 

For example, meaningless statements such as 'power per second' as used several times above.  Just what do they mean by this? The first derivative of power with respect to time?  Change in power over a time period? What? 

They then go on to equate total energy with this mysterious 'power per second' and hey presto over-unity arises as if by magic.

For gods sake learn mathematics and use it correctly, or stop propagating such garbage lest those without an education start to believe it.

Well I can be smug and get credit for predicting a fail in this thread before it all even happened.  The signs were clearly all there to be seen.  I give Sterling a lot of credit for cancelling his flight and pulling the plug on this joker.

This guy was trying to pull off the same old stunt that we have seen with Yildiz, John Rohner, Bob Rohner, and countless other fakers and liars and criminals.  They want to lure you into a demo that is ultimately inconclusive.  That way they get their message out in their never ending search for a gullible investor to part with his or her hard-earned money.

Look at the case of Bob Rohner.  Last year he was asked about measurements and he said that he was unable to do them himself but he planned on getting someone to help him.  Nothing has changed this year, he still hasn't done any measurements and as far as I am concerned he has no intention of doing any measurements.  Why is that?  The answer is that measurements will clearly show that he has nothing and that stops the gravy train - no more looking for investors, no more crowd funding projects, no more new videos on YouTube to attract more eyeballs in the never ending search for easy money.

Pierce was clearly sending out signals that this was going to be a fail.  But he was desperate to have Sterling show up anyways and get an inconclusive writeup to keep the free energy carrot dangling.

A dangling free energy carrot is a way to make free money and live off of other people's cash.  Look at John Rohner as an example.

In my opinion this whole fiasco was just an expression of criminality.  Many times, the people that you think want to save the world with a free energy claim are nothing more than sleazy, lazy, rotten criminals that should be in jail.

MileHigh

It's not over yet. No fat lady singing!

Chuck has woken up and says he's found the "nemi" he was looking for, Sterling is probably kicking himself for not going, now the demo failure will be blamed on him .... will there be anything happening on Smart Scarecrow?  Stay tuned....

Nemi?

http://www.norway.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/20807C6ACBB24565827C5B97DAA835F7/125767/Nemi2.jpg

TK:

Why not join Gary's chat that's linked to from his website tonight.  (Not the JustinTV link.)   Should be fun.

MH

So, that's that then.

Actually based on what MH, TK and mark were saying I had concluded the Mr. Pierce probably didn't know what he was doing, probably didn't have anything to get excited about and may not be on the level with his work.   I even stated that elsewhere regarding his device.   But I was seeing some info from another person who seemed to have a lot better understanding of such devices, had a lot of math behind it (I didn't show that here) and was hoping some might check out his info (at the site I mentioned in the first post).   Unfortunately I think a lot of people here won't even bother to look as it has a somewhat religious overtone and that tends to close the doors immediately for some people.   I believe that just because someone throws in some religion it does not especially mean they are wrong in their science.   This person seems to have working prototypes and a lot of theory to back up what he learned over many years of experimenting with flywheels and motors.   I only picked a few pieces of his info to post hat seemed relevant here and might be part of what Mr. Pierce was seeing or using.  But I also saw some things that were clearly different in regards to how energy was being used.    The statements below reflect a difference in how the person at http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/index.html (http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/index.html)  sees this vs. how Mr. Pierce appears to see things:

KEY FACT: Less Watts of electrical energy are consumed per second than Watts/Horsepower developed per second.

Understand that you cannot use the output at f. to supply input a. - Doing so causes exponential decay of system Velocities and introduces one to the reality of Entropy, a part of the second law of thermodynamics.

Besides that, it would be an exercise in insanity, attempting "Perpetual motion" of the well defined first and second kind that 400 years of efforts have not been able to achieve.

KEY FACT: TWO (or more) SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED to work around "Entropy", which means when the power of a "closed system" becomes unusable to itself. This fact becomes evident when one reads a complete scientific definition of entropy beyond the part about disorder, disarray, uncertainty of state are not relevant to solid matter as fuel machines.
The statements above were taken from http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/index.html (http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/index.html)  where there are at least 41 pages of theory and info on his device.   Some includes way more math than I care to get into so if any one here can see past the short comings of the way it's presented I'd love to hear opinions on it.   This person does not come off as another Witt's type at all.  He is not wanting to patent it or hide it - I believe he said it is essentially open source.  I'm not sure how else to state that but there are more details on his site.
You can also see he has a business involving machinery and I imagine his work evolved from that business.   

The God stuff is a turn off for sure, but even worse than God for me is his astounding sixteen significant digits of precision. A front page that is ten feet long is also a red flag.

There is one thing you can say about someone who claims a number or result to sixteen digits of precision: he is almost certainly wrong.

After all, if I tell you that a device is making 0.23537889404232 horsepower, I am telling you that it is NOT making 0.23537889404233 horsepower or 0.23537889404231 horsepower or any other horsepower value. In other words, I am probably wrong, because I don't know the numbers that went into the calculation nearly that precisely, do I. Did I measure the RPM to the millionth of a percent accuracy? Of course not.

I would assume that was him just plugging some numbers into his spreadsheet calculator for theoretical purposes and simply copied the output as far as the calculator took it.   I would assume it is to show the theory rather than real world numbers.   For that I would not turn my back on what else he may have to say.   Based on what I've read so far he's been at this for many years and has accumulated a large amount of knowledge from both reading and experimenting.   I think he has an interesting take on may concepts.   I almost find it enlightening that he says "Overunity is FICTION."   He does not seem to think anything he has built is contradicting any laws of physics or science but rather that we have missed some important concepts that have been purposely hidden (or suppressed).   Or at least that's what I've taken away from all my reading there so far.   

I'd like to throw a cat among the pigeons. lol


https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013104040A1?cl=en&dq=WO/2013/104040A1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0sIEUvXHE8On4AS004DwDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA




http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Electric-energy-generation-system/WO2013104040A1.pdf


Me thinks our guy should have got a patent first lol.

Plugging some numbers into a spreadsheet and then parroting back all sixteen digits of the spreadsheet's output tells me several things.

First, the person doing this is NOT concerned with accuracy at all.... because I can prove from here, just sitting in my chair, that his numbers are wrong. He cannot have more precision in his results than the _least precise_ measurement that goes into the calculation. If there are only three significant digits in any of the input numbers, there can only legitimately be three significant (that is, HONEST) digits in the answer.

Second, he is trying to dazzle and impress the reader with _false precision_. This is.... duplicitous at best.

Third, he either does not understand the issue of Significant Digits and legitimate levels of precision, OR he is deliberately snowing his readers.

With those three strikes, why should I continue to read some long "theoretical" rant that is essentially meaningless (false precision, inaccurate reporting, possible mendacity)?

If he has some device, or even a credible simulation, that demonstrates the validity of his claims with actual data obtained at realistic levels of precision... fine. Show me that, and I'll tell you what I think. But I don't read long theoretical rants if there are three red flags at the beginning, sorry.

Well, it's four oclock PM Eastern time, and I still see nothing on the JustinTV channel, and there have been no new updates on Sterling's blog page since "13:15 am Eastern" (sic).

So is this a first? A Two-For-One fail? They didn't manage the Smart Scarecrow appearance, and now they don't seem to be managing the "rain date" either. Or did the Yildiz demonstration already have that award?

Who is paying Sterling for all of this, I wonder. Who just throws away money on airline tickets and cancellation fees like that, without expecting anything in return, or receiving anything in return except more bs?

QuoteStuart Campbell Mod  Pete • 10 hours ago
Take a look at
http://www.justin.tv/pierceregen
between 2pm and 8pm Eastern Friday 9th
and then come back.

Well? I am taking a look, and I am coming back, but YOU aren't approving comments. Or don't we call "fail" until 8 pm Eastern?

Quote from: a.king21 on August 09, 2013, 06:24:41 AM
I'd like to throw a cat among the pigeons. lol


https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013104040A1?cl=en&dq=WO/2013/104040A1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0sIEUvXHE8On4AS004DwDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA (https://www.google.com/patents/WO2013104040A1?cl=en&dq=WO/2013/104040A1&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0sIEUvXHE8On4AS004DwDQ&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA)




http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Electric-energy-generation-system/WO2013104040A1.pdf (http://www.sumobrain.com/patents/wipo/Electric-energy-generation-system/WO2013104040A1.pdf)


Me thinks our guy should have got a patent first lol.

Yeah, he filed a couple US patent applications back in 2007, but as usual the US Patent office is SLOW to issue patents, not like in the "good old days" when Tesla filed and would get a patent in 6 months later!


Cheers

Some updates:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Events:2013:August:Chuck_Pierce%27s_Regen_Demo

QuoteText messages from Chuck:

    "I didn't finish it. I felt so bad. Yesterday was not a good day for me at all. I have these bad days, and there's nothing

I can do about it. But good always comes to those that wait. You won't be disappointed."

    "Don't be disappointed with me yet. I'm attaching the expensive test gear to it, as well as my testronic scope, so these

guys will leave us alone about no proper measurements."

    "Almost time to come on line; but I see no body is interested because they think it's bullshit...."

    "Guess I'm a piece of $#*+ since I didn't bow to everybody's schedule. I told you in the beginning that my day don't start

until 3, 4,5, or 6 pm; and I got some damage to the unit in the move. If people can't accept that, then that's their problem."

[Sounds like Dollard]

    "Look, Sterling, I have to work. I have a company to run and clients and customers to deal with. I don't always have time

to run and jump at all these people's request to run and video; but I'm trying to comply with this. And as far as the

government, they're welcomed to come by and look all they want. I have nothing to hide from no one.

I replied: "Just let me know then you get it running and able to produce power, with the batteries disconnected. You can call

any time, when you achieve that."

    "It does work, so I don't care who sees it. I've had quite a few engineers look at it, as well as nuclear engineers; and

they all gave the thumbs up, so I'm good to go.

I replied: "We're all rooting for you."

    "I know you are. I won't let you down."

Chuck is trying to play the victim.  Personally I won't believe that he is running a company unless he can prove it.  I have addressed the issue of technical language or lack thereof many times for many caases.  You can also make inferences about his use of the English language in this case.

In my opinion this guy is an ordinary Joe Blow and we know that he is lying about his ridiculous PhD claims.  Right there and then that would have disqualified him for me.  Perhaps he bought a used nonworking generator at an auction or something like that.  He also managed to get a big motor and he mounted it into the generator frame along with some big old batteries.  In other words Chuck went about to make a prop so that he could upload some videos to YouTube and take a shot at making a score.  He read PESN and he knew that he would get instant free publicity.  He was hoping that there would be a pot of gold somewhere and Sterling would help lead him to that pot of gold.  And apparently there is a $20K pot of gold out there and the "sales lead" comes from Sterling himself.

But Chuck wasn't anticipating that along with naive rich angel investors there were some technical people that were also reading the PESN web site.  Chuck knows that he doesn't stand a chance with the technical people that are watching and so he cancelled the demo.  The usual pattern in these cases is that they will wait for somewhere between six and 24 months to try again for the big score.

MileHigh

Compare and contrast.  Discuss.

<<< Guess I'm a piece of $#*+ since I didn't bow to everybody's schedule. I told you in the beginning that my day don't start until 3, 4,5, or 6 pm. >>>

<<< Look, Sterling, I have to work. I have a company to run and clients and customers to deal with. I don't always have time to run and jump at all these people's request to run and video; but I'm trying to comply with this. >>>

It makes me think of a funny line from a cartoon drawing:  Six munce ago I cutn't even spell ingineer and now I are one.

MH:

Come on now, you know that FE machines only work on special occasions and you can not schedule a demo because you never know when it will be working.  Take Rose's demo today, she said they achieved the anomaly prior to the camera being turned on and, of course, no one was watching when it happened. but it did really happen...really.

This fellow's machine outputs free energy, but of course, he has not run it in 6 months.  That makes total sense to me.  I would only want free energy for a little while, and then, I would gladly write my checks to the power company.  No need in being greedy.

You have to cut this guy some slack.  He just moved so the machine, of course, does not work now.  This is very typical of all free energy machines and you should have realized this by now.  For all we know, it may never work again...BUT, it was working before he shut it off so he could pay the power company.  Sterling would never back a device that didn't work....right?

Be patient and we will see the truth.

Bill

Here, I'll cut him some slack.
(Did we forget that he had it running and showing power output in the first, 11 minute video he did manage? So was the Nemi working then, just moments before the scheduled Smart Scarecrow demo... or what? Never mind, pay no attention to the working, then not working miracle machine.)
He built the machine in good faith according to his delusional patent, and it runs and you can plug stuff into it. But he may never have actually tried to run it with the batteries actually disconnected. Recall that in his previous claims he says he disconnects the starter...
So now he can't get it to keep running when the batteries are disconnected, and he thinks there is something wrong with the machine. But the new Nemi behaves the same as his old Nemi and it won't keep running when the battery lead is disconnected.
His friends, like "Pat" and "Jerry", probably have also never actually seen the thing running and powering a heavy load (because he didn't actually have a real load for it to power) and certainly never saw it running with no battery.
Then, just before the SS demo but after the eleven minute video, they unplugged the battery... and the machine stops. For the very first time? Yeah... right.  And then the scrambling began.

How's that for cutting slack? He's not a deliberate fraudster from the get-go like Mylow, rather, he's a deluded, poor experimentalist not averse to fooling himself by ignoring contrary results and misrepresenting actual performance,  like Ainslie.
What he is NOT is a genius inventor with a PhD in "thermonuclear reactors" from a religious diploma mill college that doesn't even have a hard science graduate program... and is now defunct.

TK:

This one is as close as it gets right now for my "sweet spot."  That being a high-profile free energy proposition that might be bankrolled by an investor.  In this case someone is allegedly going to fork over twenty thousand dollars to Chuck Pierce.

One more time, there are enough red flags to make it look like a May Day parade for Chairman Mao in the "old" China.

I don't know how you could cut this guy some slack based on what we have seen so far.  If the potential angel investor is following closely and checking around online, then this person should be having some second thoughts.  In many ways this is a repeat of Sterling's South African fiasco.

MileHigh

Well, in spite of what people think of me, I always do assume error rather than fraud initially, and I look for ways that errors, simple or complex, could have produced the unusual results that claimants wind up claiming.

Like with Ainslie's original Quantum article: all the heating results can be fully accounted for by the 555 inverted duty cycle, which was an error due to her conceptual difficulty with "HI=OFF" at the drain of a mosfet with a high-side load. (Everything _after_ that, from Ainslie, though, was her deliberate fabrications compounded by her willfull arrogant ignorance.)

In the present case it's easy to see that the big battery bank could run the inverters for quite a while and even with a genuine 17 kW load-- which is a lot, it will heat up the garage in a hurry -- we could expect 20 minutes or so of runtime. So "Cutting some slack" and assuming "for the sake of discussion" that Chuck isn't another MyLOW.... I look for explanations of what he could be seeing, within the parameters of real science and accurate measurement.

So, maybe he worked and worked on the thing, it runs for a while then needs adjustment or repair, he's hooked 4 kW to it (while it draws 4.3 kW or whatever) and his theoretical projections say it should work. It's an easy line to cross between believing that it "should work" to believing that it "does work, only keeps breaking down". I think maybe Wayne Travis  crossed this line too, at one point, perhaps in good faith, and then realized there is more money in "developing" a free energy buoyancy drive than there is in actually "having" one that you can't demonstrate -- and the good faith went out the window while he praises God all the way to the bank.

So maybe, really, Chuck never actually tried it with an adequate load.... and the batteries disconnected. 

/cutting slack mode


But in my heart of hearts I believe he's a fraudster, gaming Sterling just like Yildiz did, only with less hair.

@TK
Did i miss something with the yildiz motor?-was it found to be a fraud?.
This generator /motor setup was debunked with the first video i watched,and there mathmaticle brilliance. It's plane to see that it's there new amp measuring formula that make's this device an OU machine. If we all use this new formula,we all will do much better in making that OU machine a reality.
This reminds me so much of UFOpolotics prony brake formula,where as my "off the shelf "DC motor came in at 132% efficiency. Im happy to sell this motor to anyone that offers $100 000-or more.

Tinman:

The worst thing is that nobody on EF challenged UFOPolitics about his incorrect prony brake measurement when you have to assume that many of the thread participants were "clandestinely peeking" on OU.  Same thing for how no one ever raised the issue of comparing an unmodified motor with a "asymmetrically" rewired motor to see if there was any improvement in performance.  There isn't nearly as much of a "free and open-minded exchange of ideas" as they would want you to believe.

Sometimes you can be your own worst enemy.

MileHigh

@MileHigh:


On the UFOPolitics motor thread over at EF I asked for dyno readings as well as amps in/out data on page 2 (Post #44 http://www.energeticforum.com/201427-post44.html ). I didn't every see any real info. . . .


truesearch

TK, MH and all:

My tongue in cheek comment about cutting this fellow some slack, comes from the fact that he has offered a free machine to Sterling so he could run his entire house and get off the grid.  Yet, yet...just like WITTS, HE IS STILL ON THE GRID HIMSELF!!!  How do I know this?  Well, he said his machine has not been turned on in 6 months so, unless he has been sitting in the dark all of this time,  I think it is safe to "assume" that he still pays an electric bill...BUT, he was going to arrange it so Sterling would no longer have to.

To me, this says it all.  I don't need to check the math and the physics like you guys can, and do.  Just look at the simple red flags like the main one I just mentioned.  Then, throw in the patent stuff and some other red flags and you start drifting quickly toward Mylowville.

Maybe we will see a demo on Gary's show this week?  Who knows. 

Bill

Hi MileHigh, I can't blame you for missing it, but I did question his "pony brake" method as well, and I think I also ( but not certain, I know I meant to) mentioned he should compare to a regular DC motor or better still an induction motor with the rated load for best efficiency. But I was abused by him and his minions for almost every question I asked, quite foul abuse as well, and I proved his pulse hover magnet rubbish was just silly. I also mentioned the patent diagram he used so he could say his device "looked like" Tesla's Dynamo Electric Machine Patent which was/is an AC arrangement anyway and certainly not any OU from it. I think he only really has two or three still building and many of the others are likely him anyway.  ;D  His damage is already done, most have been burned and are receiving treatment, I think.

Of course the Moderators did nothing about the sick abuse even when requested by at least two or three people maybe more. Just goes to show what it is all about over there, without reservation. Hype and site hit's.

But yes none of the contributors/builders ask any difficult questions, but they did join in the abuse because he incited them to. Hehehehehe

Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2013, 06:29:02 PM
Tinman:

The worst thing is that nobody on EF challenged UFOPolitics about his incorrect prony brake measurement when you have to assume that many of the thread participants were "clandestinely peeking" on OU.  Same thing for how no one ever raised the issue of comparing an unmodified motor with a "asymmetrically" rewired motor to see if there was any improvement in performance.  There isn't nearly as much of a "free and open-minded exchange of ideas" as they would want you to believe.

Sometimes you can be your own worst enemy.

MileHigh

Cheers

Bill:

Those magnificent men with their free energy machines,
they go up tiddly up up,
they go down tiddly down down.

They enchant all the ladies and steal all the scenes,
with their up tiddly up up
and their down tiddly down down.

The first magnificent man that produces a real free energy machine............
Will save all the world and be the next bloody Einstein!

MileHigh

Farmhand:

It's almost like a classic science fiction theme.  You are with the righteous "rebels."  When the rebels win you end up finding out that they are even worse than the "system" that you were fighting against.  Now I do recall that you mentioned that you spoke up in UFO's thread and got a beating.  Welcome to the club!

MileHigh

Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2013, 06:29:02 PM
Tinman:

The worst thing is that nobody on EF challenged UFOPolitics about his incorrect prony brake measurement when you have to assume that many of the thread participants were "clandestinely peeking" on OU.  Same thing for how no one ever raised the issue of comparing an unmodified motor with a "asymmetrically" rewired motor to see if there was any improvement in performance.  There isn't nearly as much of a "free and open-minded exchange of ideas" as they would want you to believe.

Sometimes you can be your own worst enemy.

MileHigh

I did,and UFO asked me to leave the thread,or he would have me removed. I went as far as to spend my own hard earnd cash to prove he was doing it wrong.Even after showing him this,and providing him with the correct method,he still insisted that he did it right.This was his second call of overunity.The first was ofcourse by using light globes-as per the normal form of measurements with OU devices that we see all the time.
Here is the video i made showing both UFO's method,and the propper prony brake method.
This was back in january,when i carried out the test. It seems that UFO has removed all his comments on that video???.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkwRA28Y0dM

Quote from: tinman on August 12, 2013, 09:17:54 AM
@TK
Did i miss something with the yildiz motor?-was it found to be a fraud?.
(snip)

You are kidding, right?

The "preponderance of evidence" is that Yildiz is a faker, because he has never actually demonstrated in public what he claims. The recent demonstration that Sterling went to see was the final nail in the coffin for many Yildiz-watchers, because in spite of his difficulties it was possible to make some power computations, using the known power dissipation values for the model airplane propeller he used as a load. (Mistake, there: he should have stuck with his anonymous fan blade, so he could continue to claim hundreds or thousands of watts output power.) What did happen there was another comedy of deliberate errors that no honest demonstrator would have made or allowed to happen.

So.... "was it found to be a fraud"? Well, if you, or I had been there instead of Sterling Allen, I think it would have been found to be a fraud, conclusively. I would have challenged each of his claims and examined them for validity using things like prony brakes, real gaussmeters and so forth. I would have insisted on observing the long runs as promised, especially the "parking lot overnight" runs,  and I would have wanted to see the "backup" motor running as well. Having agreed in writing with the claimant beforehand what was to be demonstrated, and the criteria for acceptance or rejection, no weaseling or waffling about would have been permitted. A convenient failure of a component, preventing the demonstration, would invoke the "penalty clause": If I don't get to see what you promised me I will see, then you pay me the (large) penalty amount agreed upon. Destruction of the apparatus by a nuclear terrorist attack would be about the only way out of such a penalty clause. Or the claimant dropping dead in his tracks, of course. Lack of a backup plan on the claimant's part does not constitute a provisional "pass" on my part, it counts as a solid "fail".

Tinman:

Thanks for the information.  So apparently you and Farmhand tried to make valid contributions to the UFOPolitics threads and you were both cast out.  So I would assume that many of the contributors to the UFOPolitics threads are in a form of denial or they are kind of like "drones in a hive."  I guess that they avoid the notion of real tangible and verifiable results.  Instead they follow the test procedures that they are told to perform by the King Bee.

I don't really follow those threads, but if they are just measuring RPMs and current draw on unloaded motors then that would be a mistake.  A mistake in the sense that they are rewiring real motors that are supposed to do real mechanical work.  (I realize that they also have an "extra" AC output.)  That's in contrast to Bedini motors where you have an "opt-out clause" and just want to look at how well it charges the charging battery.  That's another can of worms not worth getting into again.

In a generic sense, the best approach would be to gain competence or a mastery of "conventional" electronics and motors, and only after that competence has been established then start to research into "new territory."  Of course that's an ongoing issue where some people believe that you can skip the first step altogether and just charge head-on into the second step.

Hence you get people like Rosemary that toil away for years in vain, or UFO with his allegedly improved motors that have never seriously been compared to unmodified motors.  For UFO you have a cult of personality and his minions happening also.

Then you get people like Chuck Pierce where it's possible that he is just trying to impress the "premature second steppers" and at the same time find a deluded angel investor.

Anyway, that's just the way it is.

MileHigh

For the Ylidiz affair, that's where Sterling "anti-shines."  It was pathetic to see Sterling pump Yildiz.  Very depressing because if Sterling will pump Yildiz, that means that Sterling will "pump" anything that moves.

I had written of Yiditz years ago,
The final nail if any were left was Yilditz failing to provide a working test motor in Germany last month for some agreed tests.
I need to thank him he got me banned on PESWIKI. Mylow got be banned on many of Sterling's other Forums
Mark

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 13, 2013, 10:27:39 AM
You are kidding, right?

The "preponderance of evidence" is that Yildiz is a faker, because he has never actually demonstrated in public what he claims. The recent demonstration that Sterling went to see was the final nail in the coffin for many Yildiz-watchers, because in spite of his difficulties it was possible to make some power computations, using the known power dissipation values for the model airplane propeller he used as a load. (Mistake, there: he should have stuck with his anonymous fan blade, so he could continue to claim hundreds or thousands of watts output power.) What did happen there was another comedy of deliberate errors that no honest demonstrator would have made or allowed to happen.

So.... "was it found to be a fraud"? Well, if you, or I had been there instead of Sterling Allen, I think it would have been found to be a fraud, conclusively. I would have challenged each of his claims and examined them for validity using things like prony brakes, real gaussmeters and so forth. I would have insisted on observing the long runs as promised, especially the "parking lot overnight" runs,  and I would have wanted to see the "backup" motor running as well. Having agreed in writing with the claimant beforehand what was to be demonstrated, and the criteria for acceptance or rejection, no weaseling or waffling about would have been permitted. A convenient failure of a component, preventing the demonstration, would invoke the "penalty clause": If I don't get to see what you promised me I will see, then you pay me the (large) penalty amount agreed upon. Destruction of the apparatus by a nuclear terrorist attack would be about the only way out of such a penalty clause. Or the claimant dropping dead in his tracks, of course. Lack of a backup plan on the claimant's part does not constitute a provisional "pass" on my part, it counts as a solid "fail".

Yes i was aware from those like us that know what is what,new it was a scam. But i was wondering if there was an admitance from yildiz ,that it was a fake?.
Sorry for the missunderstanding on that.
But in saying that,i still believe that an all magnet motor will be the first (so called) OU machine,as the force is already contained within the PM itself. Only when a complete understanding on exactly what a magnetic field is,and how to manipulate that field-will we then achieve such a goal.

Quote from: markdansie on August 13, 2013, 07:24:37 PM
I had written of Yiditz years ago,
The final nail if any were left was Yilditz failing to provide a working test motor in Germany last month for some agreed tests.
I need to thank him he got me banned on PESWIKI. Mylow got be banned on many of Sterling's other Forums
Mark

Must be just us Aussie's Mark lol.

All of the stories have been pulled on PESN. Is it suppressed lol?
Has Mr. open source (Sterling) done a deal and trying to protect his investment?

Very mysterious.
Worth a question I believe on the Smart Scarecrow show
Kind Regards

Quote(Sterling) done a deal and trying to protect his !important investment

LoL, He discovered they are using time travel technology, taking energy from the past to run the device in the future  ;)

For some people it's Electrical Groundhog Day.  Every night when they dream they see little *shiny* piggies being led to the market for slaughter.  They get zapped by you know what.  lol

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Events:2013:August:Chuck_Pierce%27s_Regen_Demo (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Events:2013:August:Chuck_Pierce%27s_Regen_Demo)

It certainly still seems to be there for me. Maybe Mark has had his read access blocked by Sterling?

Or did you mean Yildiz?
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Event:2013:Validating_Muammer_Yildiz%27_Magnet_Motor_for_30_Days_at_European_University

No, he's still there too. So... huh?

Hi TK
it re appeared after a while, I was responding to others who were asking the same question.
Sterling has emailed me asking me never to contact him again
Mark

Does that mean he won't contact you if you find a genuine device, Sterling is in need of a humor transplant.

Quote from: powercat on August 15, 2013, 04:16:29 AM
Does that mean he won't contact you if you find a genuine device, Sterling is in need of a humor transplant.

Lol,now that would be as funny as it get's. I would love to be a fly on the wall to be able to see the look on Sterlings face,if Mark anounced he had an actual OU device-clasic.
One deals in fairytails,the other in data-no need to say which one dose what.

Not only has it reappeared, there is new input from Chuck!

Quote
August 15, 2013; 00:30 am Eastern: RepairingI sent a text message to Chuck asking: "Any Luck?"[/font][/size]
He replied:[/font][/size]"Yes, main relay and sub-relay from primary generator were damaged. Replaced main contactor. Replacing sub contactor as we speak. Also, one coil burnt on start-up on main contactor and sub-contator were physically broken, so that's why it wouldn't engage. Won't take much longer."[/font][/size]"Been very sick the last 2 or 3 days."[/font][/size]Then, Pat called and said he was just leaving Chuck's place. He thought it would take another day at least.[/font][/size]
Then Chuck wrote: "Thank God none of the generators or the drive system were destroyed. That would have been costly."[/font][/size][/font][/size]

Thank God! That will of course be the _next_ failure, or the one after that. We wouldn't want to disable the device "permanently" yet, while the fish are still on the hook.

@tinman..i see you do have a somewhat open mind after all.indeed you can get a 2lot violation with a magnetic or electromagnetic system if you  juxtaposition the thermodynamic energy exchanges to just the right way.perfecto

Quote from: profitis on August 15, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
@tinman..i see you do have a somewhat open mind after all.indeed you can get a 2lot violation with a magnetic or electromagnetic system if you  juxtaposition the thermodynamic energy exchanges to just the right way.perfecto

So you keep claiming but never provide any proof. All the available evidence suggests the opposite.

Magnetization of low Currie point materials follows normal thermodynamic laws.

@ Profitis,
why don't you write a couple of articles or papers on your pet subject for revolution-green as a guest writer?
Kind Regards

Quote from: tinman on August 13, 2013, 03:36:10 AM
I did,and UFO asked me to leave the thread,or he would have me removed. I went as far as to spend my own hard earnd cash to prove he was doing it wrong.Even after showing him this,and providing him with the correct method,he still insisted that he did it right.This was his second call of overunity.The first was ofcourse by using light globes-as per the normal form of measurements with OU devices that we see all the time.
Here is the video i made showing both UFO's method,and the propper prony brake method.
This was back in january,when i carried out the test. It seems that UFO has removed all his comments on that video???.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkwRA28Y0dM

Tinman, well done, impressive result. I was on a similar train of thought but was complaining of the change in friction due to the heat more than anything else,
I must have missed the calculation part. Anyway you nailed it, and with good measure. Like your work Sir. >

Cheers

P.S. Wouldn't just one scale and a "weight" be more accurate as then the lengthening of the rope would have little to no effect ?

That's a slab demo ! Better than a six pack demo.


...

Quote from: MileHigh on August 12, 2013, 08:34:31 PM
Farmhand:

It's almost like a classic science fiction theme.  You are with the righteous "rebels."  When the rebels win you end up finding out that they are even worse than the "system" that you were fighting against.  Now I do recall that you mentioned that you spoke up in UFO's thread and got a beating.  Welcome to the club!

MileHigh

Yeah kinda. hehehe I could fit some of the characters into an old classic film's story line I think.

I'm not big on "clubs" though, I like to roam free, and stray from the herd to go look what's beyond the bushes afar.  :)



....

Quote from: profitis on August 15, 2013, 12:26:14 PM
@tinman..i see you do have a somewhat open mind after all.indeed you can get a 2lot violation with a magnetic or electromagnetic system if you  juxtaposition the thermodynamic energy exchanges to just the right way.perfecto

I have a very open mind when it comes to exotic energy machine's-this you can see on my youtube channel. I have tried many of the devices that came into the OU view,and where the fad for a while-like the GEGENE-wow,i made a transformer.The best performance from this device i got,was by removing the BPC,and cooking my dinner with the induction cooktop.Infact,thanks to the GEGENE video's on the web,my wife love's the induction cooktop.This thing can boil 5 liters of water faster than my kettle can boil 1 liter.
But as far as an all magnet motor go's-well i see so many people trying to shield magnetic fields with iron,insted of trying to make the attraction of iron itself neutral.
This is something i have been working on for some time now "in the background",and with some very interesting result's. It involve's using a multi cube magnet setup-similar to a halbach array,that i designed myself.

@libre..if you shove 2 identical platinum electrodes at different depths in acid you get the most clear,cleanest,unshakeable,uncontested,replicable 2lot breach comprehendable to human minds.do you want to tell me that this phenomena is limited to electrochemistry? ridiculous.

@markdansie..i,ve got to get under corporate umbrella first before going public mini-rossi-styles although publicity may actualy help to materialise that goal.you may yet be the bridge im looking for from the jungle to the west.i sense that you know that i know my stuff.       

@tinman the curie point my friend,the curie point is the ultimate magnetic shield.thats why i keep telling libre that electromagnetism or magnetism involving the low curie elements eg.gadolinium are going to do interesting things,unexpected things.

@ Profitis
You seem to have theories on many things,but no actual devices???. I have never been one for lots of talk,and no action. By some of your statments,it seems that you are unwilling to forward any sort of schematic or working device,until such time as it will make you money?. While i have no problem with people making money from there hard work,i dont much care for lots of talk, with nothing to backup said claims.First you claim the karpen pile battery is an OU device,but you refuse to build it. Now you claim to know how to build a working all magnet motor,but once again hide under the unprotected claim. A forum like this is to share your idea's with others, that could lead to a device that helps us all out. But all you share is copious amounts of unproven theories, with no intention of ever showing any atempt at a working device.

I guess my (and many others) question is-why are you here? It's all good to have theories,but talk is cheap-actions speak louder than word's.
I myself ,have not built an OU device. But like many here,i put my thoughts into actions,in way of actual device's,and share my work for all to see. So far,not one proven OU device has ever been presented on this forum or any other-but we keep on trying. So how about you put your thoughts into actions,and share with us, like we share with you.

I will agree with you on one thing,and that is-if i manage to build a device that i believe to me a(so called)OU device,the first person i will be calling to confirm said device will be Mark. Once Mark confirms that the device is powered by an unknown power source,then we  get a third party to also test the device (some one like poynt,TK or MileHigh)-people that know there stuff. This can be done under an NDA from all involved,so your device would remain your's,along with the operating priciples. So there is no reason you have not to put your theories into a working device,and have it confirmed to opperate as you claim it will. Then after that is done Profitis,you will make your profit. But until then,you have nothing but unconfirmed theories.

Tinman:

I agree 100%.  This is an Open Source forum is it not?  There are several folks on here that do the same thing....talk like they "know" something, but never show it or explain it to others.  I too hope to be making a little money from some of my little devices so, I have no problem with that.  Experimenting and equipment to do so costs money.  My problem is when folks claim that they have a working magnet motor, or self-looped electronic device....but never show it to anyone or do anything with it.  This leads me to believe that they have nothing and know little.  I am sorry but what else are we to conclude?

Bill

It does always come back to the same thing, that is what "we" personally consider as OU.

Free space cannot power loads, we need a device to harness free energy or transfer/transform work then we can use the energy to power loads or get work done ect.. Cheaply.

There will always be an outlay of "Plant and Equipment" and in some cases a small amount of start up energy or fuel to use maybe.

However anything over C.O.P. 1.0 is OU to me. The cost of the machine to harness it means little in that respect because costs can be cut and devices improved.
Some can be got/made at no monetary cost. Our man hours are ours we do not need to charge ourselves money for our own work periods.  ;D

Improving the efficiency of something from 70% to 90% is as good to me as improving one from 90% to 110%.
The over 100% isn't a "turn on" to me as it happens all the time in several ways already.

The cost of "Plant and Equipment" never should come into any input v output efficiency calculation.

And C.O.P. is calculated on our input compared to effective or usable output no laws need be considered.

Therefore to my way of thinking, Solar powered systems, Wind powered systems, Hydro powered systems
and Earth Battery powered systems are all full blown OU systems or "Methods". All over C.O.P. 1.0 capable easily.

Cheers

Couple of EDITs

@tinman..let me answer your questions with a question. why arent you the slightest bit concerned about the paralytic inability of our resident expert on thermodynamics,libre,to counter-attack my prescribed experiment above?why arent you able to attack it?im here to teach people tinman,with replicable experiments that they themselves can do at home,that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not extend beyond certain limits.that is my main duty,at least on this website.my other duty is to sniff out guys with power and influence that want to make money and who may be able to help me make money.thats it in a nutshell @tinman.im not interested in 3rd party testers,or varifications.i only go by the text-book as i have done with the karpen example.i suspect markdansie,s influence extends past just varifications so ima keep an eye.   

Quote from: profitis on August 16, 2013, 10:55:20 PM
@tinman..let me answer your questions with a question. why arent you the slightest bit concerned about the paralytic inability of our resident expert on thermodynamics,libre,to counter-attack my prescribed experiment above?why arent you able to attack it?im here to teach people tinman,with replicable experiments that they themselves can do at home,that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not extend beyond certain limits.that is my main duty,at least on this website.my other duty is to sniff out guys with power and influence that want to make money and who may be able to help me make money.thats it in a nutshell @tinman.im not interested in 3rd party testers,or varifications.i only go by the text-book as i have done with the karpen example.i suspect markdansie,s influence extends past just varifications so ima keep an eye.

Hi Profitis, have done that exact experiment and with many other noble metals. You do get a little bit out of it.  I can show you a few other tricks like how to get a copper wire and create a potential between the two ends by coating it in specific areas with other conductors. There are another 101 experiments o do like creating current with two electrodes in a hydrogen environment in the presence of a magnetic field. I am not sure what your point is? the team of physicist, material scientist and chemists all agree there was no reach of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. These are brilliant scientists. Over 100 patents between them.
Even the disk I demonstrated in Holland, with latter data showed to be caused by a different effect. All within the laws of known science.
The most interesting device I am discussing with another research group not only produces electricity but cools the immediate environment down wen it does when in the presence of a magnetic field.


Note
1. The cost of The exotics does not make many of these financially viable to commercialize (specialist low output high value only)
2. They all have a limiting factor to be scaled that is the interaction to the environment and or energy used to create the materials through polling exceeds what can ever be extracted out.


No you won't finds this on Sterling's Site

Hi Profitis
I think you should have a look at this


http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/17/inventor-of-the-week-tinman/ (http://revolution-green.com/2013/08/17/inventor-of-the-week-tinman/)

@markdansie,the point im making here is that that the team of physicists,scientists,chemists that you refer to did not provide an conclusive explanation as to the origins of permanent electrical power in the noble metals examples which is my duty to explain using normal text-book chemistry,and show how normal text-book chemistry actualy supports a straight-forward 2nd law violation.the noble metal examples actualy do have practical use,eg,for certain military applications but i wont go offtopic here which is to show how we can obtain useful energy without the need for a temperature difference.this may not be important for the most guys who visit here but it may spur motivation for the serious ones who are already suspecting something amiss with the physics laws.with one sentence quoted from today,s textbooks i can trigger a flurry of research @markdansie,what did you find out about the holland demo if i may ask,are you allowed to tell.yes,stationary magnetic fields can give rise to electric power,ive seen it in an oxygen electrode(O2 is attracted to magnets)and other electrodes(Fe2+ ions are attracted to magnets)..     

Quote from: profitis on August 17, 2013, 09:54:46 AM
@markdansie,the point im making here is that that the team of physicists,scientists,chemists that you refer to did not provide an conclusive explanation as to the origins of permanent electrical power in the noble metals examples which is my duty to explain using normal text-book chemistry,and show how normal text-book chemistry actualy supports a straight-forward 2nd law violation.the noble metal examples actualy do have practical use,eg,for certain military applications but i wont go offtopic here which is to show how we can obtain useful energy without the need for a temperature difference.this may not be important for the most guys who visit here but it may spur motivation for the serious ones who are already suspecting something amiss with the physics laws.with one sentence quoted from today,s textbooks i can trigger a flurry of research @markdansie,what did you find out about the holland demo if i may ask,are you allowed to tell.yes,stationary magnetic fields can give rise to electric power,ive seen it in an oxygen electrode(O2 is attracted to magnets)and other electrodes(Fe2+ ions are attracted to magnets)..   

1. Well actually they did explain it but not publicly. Unlike institutions researched backed by private companies is commercial in confidence until its protected. Just as you do not want to reveal your trade secrets.
2. The hydrogen experiment is also under NDA until further testing is complete. It is not my technology to expose.
3. The other one I will get you the website in the morning. It cool
4. The one is Holland could also be the material slowly returning back to its normal state after being stressed through heat and electrical polling


Kind Regards

@markdansie..1)i explained it,publicly.this info is also available on the net.2)is there a writeup about this anywhere? 3)thanx mate 4)not necessarily 2)is there a writeup about this anywhere?

@Profitis
Im not attacking you,but more asking as to why you wont build these devices you claim to defy the second law of thermodynamic's. I for one,hope that what you say is true. But this is something that must be proven,and as you make the claim,it is up to you to do that. Normaly i would slash out some of my hard earned cash,and go build the device. But i cannot spare the amount needed to go buy gold-well not yet anyway. I question you because some things you say just dont make sence.
Example-rather than offer me $10 000.oo to build the karpen pile battery-why not spend $500.00 of that $10 000.oo and build it your self. This isnt something that can be taken from you,as it is not yours for anyone to take. The design is already patented,and has since expired. It is now open source,and cannot be claimed by anyone else. So i see no reason that you wouldnt build this device,and show us all that you are right about it being OU???.

As far as Libre go's-i have no need to question him,as he makes no claims of an OU device that i can see. And what go's on between you and him,has nothing to do with me.
Im not saying you are wrong,but i am saying that no one has (as yet) been able to create energy. There for by default,there can be no OU device,as the energy is comeing from some where. There can be free energy device's,wich to me means the gathering of energy at no cost to us-like solar or wind. An OU device has always been seen as a device that put's out more energy than it consume's-this simply cannot happen. Only until an understanding of where the extra energy input is comeing from,will that device be concidered OU.

To me ,an overunity machine is just a machine running off an unknown power source.

it seems as though someone already has built one of my devices @tinman.lets see what markdansie says about number 2.

Quote from: profitis on August 18, 2013, 08:47:58 AM
it seems as though someone already has built one of my devices @tinman.lets see what markdansie says about number 2.

You know this refers to one of your devices by these word's-The hydrogen experiment ?
Now i have to ask this question in the simplest form-if i place a gold electrode and a platinum electrode in a tub of sulphuric acid-i will have an endless supply of power?. Is this as simple as the karpen battery is?
If so,then this would power Lasersabers little motor that uses 1 uA for ever?.
Would we then have a perpetual machine?.

yes @tinman.i have a minature rossi battery device here and it has nothing to do with nuclear energy.it packs a whallop of power punches,ad infinitum,cheaply.it,s chemistry is totaly in line with accepted physics.yes gold and platinum electrodes will  power a micro-amp draw of current permanently,up to about 300 micro-amps/cm2 for using platinum black.do you have access to a well equiped lab @tinman.     

Quote from Chuck, "I will get it up and running over the weekend."

Deep down Louisiana close to New Orleans
Way back up in the woods among the evergreens
There stood a log cabin made of earth and wood
Where lived a country boy named Johnny B. Goode
Who never ever learned to read or write so well
But he could play the guitar just like a ringing a bell

Thunderbirds are go!  Go Chucky go!

Did he happen to mention which weekend? Because it sure wasn't this one, was it.

Let's see your website and contributions attempting to help others.

Let's see you show the math to be incorrect. With or without any digits of precision.

The world awaits your efforts.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 08, 2013, 10:50:31 PM
The God stuff is a turn off for sure, but even worse than God for me is his astounding sixteen significant digits of precision. A front page that is ten feet long is also a red flag.

There is one thing you can say about someone who claims a number or result to sixteen digits of precision: he is almost certainly wrong.

After all, if I tell you that a device is making 0.23537889404232 horsepower, I am telling you that it is NOT making 0.23537889404233 horsepower or 0.23537889404231 horsepower or any other horsepower value. In other words, I am probably wrong, because I don't know the numbers that went into the calculation nearly that precisely, do I. Did I measure the RPM to the millionth of a percent accuracy? Of course not.

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on August 25, 2013, 10:43:59 AM
Let's see your website and contributions attempting to help others.

Let's see you show the math to be incorrect. With or without any digits of precision.

The world awaits your efforts.

Well, for starters, check out his Youtube channels where he has posted many, many, many videos of some excellent builds and tests.  There is a ton of very useful info over there that has helped many people.  I am but one of them.  He has also built and debunked many fake devices found on Youtube, and elsewhere, saving others from wasting any time or money on those devices.

What have you done and where is it posted?

Bill

I had to go back five pages to see what this kerfluffle was about.

I'll tell you this much, for free. It is a judgement based on years of experience in the field and years of study and formal training.

The result of any calculation cannot be more precise than the _least precise_ value that goes into the calculation. This is the technical issue known as "significant digits" sometimes shortened to "sig digs".  A person who measures a distance with a ruler, accurate to the 32nd of an inch, then translates that measurement to centimeters and spits out all 16 digits from the calculator, is making a _false claim_ right there, because the input measurement is not known to that precision, so the output measurement _cannot_ be any more precise than that.  This is not a matter of my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and is known by all competent experimentalists and engineers.

My +opinion+ is this: When someone cites a number with falsely exaggerated precision, I think two things right away: First, the person is NOT a competent, knowledgeable experimentalist or engineer, since he doesn't know about sig digs or respect them, and Second, the person is trying to dazzle me with numbers, precision, his illusory math prowess, the cost of his calculator... anything but the actual claims being made and the system being measured. I don't dazzle easily, nor do I suffer fools gladly. Don't look me in the eye, shake my hand, and tell me your machine is making 24.67543833656 horsepower, because I will just turn around and walk away, shaking my head sadly.

If you _really_ need more than four or five significant digits to prove your point .... then it's not really much of a point, and I'm not really that interested, because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe, I charge money for it, and nobody is paying me to evaluate that fellow's 16-digit calculations or his longwinded theories.

(Thanks for the defence Bill, I need all the help I can get these days.)

So you see, it doesn't really matter that the "math is correct", because even if it IS ... it is still wrong!
;)

You sir are one condescending liar.
You write: "because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe".
That is hilarious!
Anyone who has "worked in the field" as you claim KNOWS they cannot in reality work to "six or seven digits of precision" on a lathe for several very well known facts you also should have experienced and learned in the field and formal training.
I admit I cannot work to that tolerance. Not even with the best of several CNC machines I OWN.

I prefer to allow you to show how you actually do so, the equipment you OWN and use and measure it with. Prove me wrong and I will apologize for calling you a liar, however the condescending part sticks because it is self evident.

As far as +opinion+ everyone knows everyone has one - and that some are bigger than others, another self evident truth.

None the less I do see you actually do experiment, and that is far more than so many others do it is worthy of respect, but I do not tolerate liars attacking me or my work. I did not come here to fight, but found here your post attacking me and my work which is not cool or a great way to get to know each other. Perhaps you might consider the subject matter presented rather than nitpicking "sig digs".

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 26, 2013, 11:51:06 PM
I had to go back five pages to see what this kerfluffle was about.

I'll tell you this much, for free. It is a judgement based on years of experience in the field and years of study and formal training.

The result of any calculation cannot be more precise than the _least precise_ value that goes into the calculation. This is the technical issue known as "significant digits" sometimes shortened to "sig digs".  A person who measures a distance with a ruler, accurate to the 32nd of an inch, then translates that measurement to centimeters and spits out all 16 digits from the calculator, is making a _false claim_ right there, because the input measurement is not known to that precision, so the output measurement _cannot_ be any more precise than that.  This is not a matter of my opinion, it is a mathematical fact and is known by all competent experimentalists and engineers.

My +opinion+ is this: When someone cites a number with falsely exaggerated precision, I think two things right away: First, the person is NOT a competent, knowledgeable experimentalist or engineer, since he doesn't know about sig digs or respect them, and Second, the person is trying to dazzle me with numbers, precision, his illusory math prowess, the cost of his calculator... anything but the actual claims being made and the system being measured. I don't dazzle easily, nor do I suffer fools gladly. Don't look me in the eye, shake my hand, and tell me your machine is making 24.67543833656 horsepower, because I will just turn around and walk away, shaking my head sadly.

If you _really_ need more than four or five significant digits to prove your point .... then it's not really much of a point, and I'm not really that interested, because when I work to six or seven digits of precision, as I do sometimes when I make parts on a lathe, I charge money for it, and nobody is paying me to evaluate that fellow's 16-digit calculations or his longwinded theories.

(Thanks for the defence Bill, I need all the help I can get these days.)

So you see, it doesn't really matter that the "math is correct", because even if it IS ... it is still wrong!
;)

So how many digits of precision do you work with when you make a part that is 10.005 inches long? How about 10.0005? Can't you work to the ten-thousandth of an inch? Not a very good machinist then, are you. There are SIX SIGNIFICANT DIGITS in the dimension 10.0005, dear sir.

And if you don't believe that I can work to tolerances of greater than one-ten-thousandth of an inch.... you have never honed a cylinder to fit a piston.

I note that you do not understand the issue and you prefer to bloviate and insult instead of face the FACTS.

After you look up Significant Digits, and machining tolerances.... you may apologize. But I doubt if you will. You cannot refute me, though.

"I did not come here to fight, but found here your post attacking me and my work which is not cool or a great way to get to know each other. Perhaps you might consider the subject matter presented rather than nitpicking "sig digs"."

Oh, yes, you did come here to fight.

I had to go back five pages to see what you were talking about, and it is off the topic of this thread. Did I attack YOU? I don't believe I did. I pointed out that the figures you cite are wrong, and I demonstrated WHY they are wrong, and I also told you what I think when someone tries to foist off WRONG data on me instead of dealing with factual issues.

You claim, apparently, that your results are accurate to all those figures. I say they aren't and they cannot be, and I've told you why, with support from REALITY that all competent experimenters and engineers respect. If you want to challenge that, the way to do it is FIRST to demonstrate that you understand sig digs, which so far you have not done, especially in your last, insulting, post, and SECOND... to demonstrate that your numbers are indeed that precise.... or change them so that they reflect the TRUTH in the degree of precision that you can manage.

If you like, I can attack YOU too, since you appear to be another classic Dunning-Kruger example and you can't deal with the actual issues I raise but would rather attack ME instead. Fine, you invited yourself, even if you can't make a part that is exactly 10.0005 inches long. Maybe you should put up your CNC machines and go back to basics for a while... at least until you can make a part that is accurate to, say, four sig digs. Can you at least do that? Make a part that is, for example, 10.05 inches long? Can you at least demonstrate that you understand the difference between MACHINING TOLERANCES, and SIGNIFICANT DIGITS ?

How many significant digits do you see in the measurement I am making here?  Do you want me to get out my micrometers, or perhaps the Mettler H-10? How about my Philips PM6676 counter which is a _calibrated_ instrument traceable to NIST standards and gives a frequency reading accurate to NINE sig digs?


No... I've got a better idea. How about YOU justify YOUR work and YOUR claims, in another thread that you start yourself, since this one is about Chuckie Pierce's failed demonstration and his continuing promises -- and failures -- to show something working.

I apologize. - There you have it, I am Man enough to do so and it is not too hard to do so: when I am wrong.

Will that suffice?

FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.  FACT is all the rest of your insults are baseless. I will leave you as I found you: not worth the effort.

Quote from: TinselKoala on August 27, 2013, 11:15:39 AM
So how many digits of precision do you work with when you make a part that is 10.005 inches long? How about 10.0005? Can't you work to the ten-thousandth of an inch? Not a very good machinist then, are you. There are SIX SIGNIFICANT DIGITS in the dimension 10.0005, dear sir.

And if you don't believe that I can work to tolerances of greater than one-ten-thousandth of an inch.... you have never honed a cylinder to fit a piston.

I note that you do not understand the issue and you prefer to bloviate and insult instead of face the FACTS.

After you look up Significant Digits, and machining tolerances.... you may apologize. But I doubt if you will. You cannot refute me, though.

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on August 27, 2013, 01:16:45 PM
I apologize. - There you have it, I am Man enough to do so and it is not too hard to do so: when I am wrong.

Will that suffice?

FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.  FACT is all the rest of your insults are baseless. I will leave you as I found you: not worth the effort.

Apology accepted, even if it is delivered from your left hand.

FACT is that I said you were wrong, and why, and I object to people presenting wrong data to me in an effort to dazzle me. That is not an insult, and it is the truth.
FACT is that you called me a liar when I said I could do machining work to six significant digits of precision. That is an insult, and it is not the truth.

Bye, now.

(Did you look at my LTD Stirling engine, which uses a CARBON cylinder (coefficient of thermal expansion about 0.5 x 10e-6/degree K) honed to fit an aluminum piston, with no seals, rings or added lubrication, and HELIUM as the working gas? Runs on a cup of warm water, or backwards on snow or ice? And the helium stays inside? I laugh at your "one degree of temperature change".)

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on August 27, 2013, 01:16:45 PM


FACT is we both may work "to" 0.0001" - however neither of us are able to honestly "hold" 0.0001" for that fact 1 degree of temperature change blows the best efforts.

Totally not true at all.  Where the heck did you learn machining?  We used to do that all day long and shipped tens of thousands of parts to our customer who measured them in QC (Over 1,000 miles away) and agreed we met the tolerances required.  (Government research contract)

Your statement is dependent on the material being machined...more exactly, the material's coefficient of thermal expansion.  We were machining aluminum oxide (99.7%) which has a low expansion.  There are some materials which your statement would be true to but to make a general statement about all materials shows very little knowledge of materials which also must mean very little knowledge of machining in general.

I was in the precision ceramic machining business for over 20 years so yes, I do know what I am talking about.

Bill

PS  What TK is talking about with the digits is machine operator basic machining 101 stuff...something a machinist would have learned before becoming a machinist.

Hi TK, Just a clarity question or two. For my own benefit. I understand what you write about the "significant digits",
and it does make sense. However when I was calculating the MOI of my rotor I had a lot of input figures from previous calcs
that were quite a few digits to begin with even though I started with not very accurate measurements (in the big scheme of
things).

I'm sure you will remember as you had the same objection to my result. one of the input figures to the final calculations was
something like ( 0.000001893583- and many more digits ) For anything but the result I think it's best to keep all the digits if
possible to keep accuracy as good as can be and the "result" could be rounded back to as few digits as the person reading it
wants to. But if we talk a formula that gives us figures to work with that are very small for the scale we work in we can go
to a smaller scale. The way I see it if I said the result was 0.00000189 then I only went to three digits of accuracy in the
result because I dropped of the other 20 digits and rounded down.

Here is a question. How do we most accurately deal with many digit results during a calculation ? And if I were using, lets
say Watts is 0.00000189 really a very small amount if it's already rounded down from many more digits ? Isn't it just
another way to write 1.89 uWatts.

I don't understand how if a simple calculation gives a figure like 0.000001983583476297871  that that can be rounded back
to two decimal points and retain accuracy especially if the figure shows up in the middle of a set of calculations by continuing
with the large figures in the calcs sometimes they get small again. Rounding back the figure above to two or even four decimal places nets us a big Zero.

What is the most accurate result for this calculation if were to be carried through to further calculations.   0.0000152 kg x 0.000213 = 0.0000000032376.
remember that figure is then to continued in calculations.

Then if the "end" result ends up being something like 0.00000046328- and many more figures and I round it back to
0.000000463 the result still has more decimal places than the input figures, and I see it ad rounded back to three figures.

Most of us do not say "this is the actual accurate result" most of say "this is what the calculations give me".

The context under which the result is presented makes all the difference. In my opinion.

Often times when we convert to Farads or Henries the figure from the conversion has many decimal places to begin with
and we must convert to use the formula. How can we deal with that without numerous decimal places ?

Cheers

@Farmhand:
Your question is basically "when do we perform the rounding" to the final digits that really are meaningful, in a long string of calculations. Right?

Well, when you are dealing with numbers like physical constants or integers, then you can take all of those digits as significant, sure. But consider this: when you make any measurement of anything physical, your measurement apparatus and technique will always be "rounding" the last digit of the readout. So, like in my caliper measurement above, I see 101.32 mm. That "2" on this instrument is telling me that the actual dimension could be anywhere between 101.315 and 101.325. (the endpoints may differ depending on the internal rounding algorithm; it could be ranging from 101.320 to 101.329, even.)
So, say you take this number as the measured length of a radius and you want to find the circumference of the circle. C = 2piR, and the "pi" and the "2" have infinite sig digs of precision. Integers are precise without question, and pi can be carried out to as many places as you have patience for. So what is your answer? Do you perform the calculation using sixteen digits of pi? If so, you get 636.612335323..... mm for the circumference, and using the 5 sig digs from the original measurement you would cite that as 636.61 mm and you could not measure it more precisely than that.
Or, using only 5 sig digs for pi, 3.1416, you get 636.613824 and citing only the correct 5 sig digs you get... 636.61 mm. And you could not measure it more precisely than that with your instruments.
The point is that you might as well only use the number of sig digs that is the least precise value, because by the time you get to the end of the calculation the extreme precision in the other numbers doesn't matter to the final result!

Don't forget that engineers did just fine using slide rules, that rarely gave more than three sig digs for _any_ calculation.

The issue of leading zeros. Are they significant, or not? Well, that is what scientific notation is for, to remind us that they are, in general, not "significant" in this use of the term.

QuoteHere is a question. How do we most accurately deal with many digit results during a calculation ? And if I were using, lets
say Watts is 0.00000189 really a very small amount if it's already rounded down from many more digits ? Isn't it just
another way to write 1.89 uWatts.

I don't understand how if a simple calculation gives a figure like 0.000001983583476297871  that that can be rounded back
to two decimal points and retain accuracy especially if the figure shows up in the middle of a set of calculations by continuing
with the large figures in the calcs sometimes they get small again. Rounding back the figure above to two or even four decimal places nets us a big Zero.

It depends on how you got to that number!  And you aren't rounding to "four decimal places" when you round 0.000001983583476297871 to  0.00000198, you are rounding to 8 decimal places, with three sig digs. 1.98 uW, with six places "hidden" in the "micro" expression. You don't wind up with zero by respecting sig digs!

Quote
What is the most accurate result for this calculation if were to be carried through to further calculations.   0.0000152 kg x 0.000213 = 0.0000000032376.
remember that figure is then to continued in calculations.

If those input numbers are the result of measurements, then the correct value should be cited as 0.00000000323, or 3.23x10e-9 or something like that. You can't really legitimately "round up" because you don't know, again, about the accuracy of those extra digits at all. Again, the "precision" of the extra 0.0000000000076 that you want to keep in will be lost in your final answer if you reduce at that point instead of now.

In the case of "pi" you can legitimately "round up" the last digit , like 3.14159.... becomes 3.1416, because you _do_ know that the 9 and other digits to the right are actually significant. But if you don't know that, like in your input numbers in the example, you should just drop the nonsig digs without rounding.

Quote

Then if the "end" result ends up being something like 0.00000046328- and many more figures and I round it back to
0.000000463 the result still has more decimal places than the input figures, and I see it ad rounded back to three figures.

Don't confuse "decimal places" with "significant digits". 

Wiki actually has a pretty good section on the "zero rules" for sig digs:

QuoteAll non-zero digits are considered significant. For example, 91 has two significant figures (9 and 1), while 123.45 has five significant figures (1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).
Zeros appearing anywhere between two non-zero digits are significant. Example: 101.1203 has seven significant figures: 1, 0, 1, 1, 2, 0 and 3.
Leading zeros are not significant. For example, 0.00052 has two significant figures: 5 and 2.
Trailing zeros in a number containing a decimal point are significant. For example, 12.2300 has six significant figures: 1, 2, 2, 3, 0 and 0. The number 0.000122300 still has only six significant figures (the zeros before the 1 are not significant). In addition, 120.00 has five significant figures since it has three trailing zeros. This convention clarifies the precision of such numbers; for example, if a measurement precise to four decimal places (0.0001) is given as 12.23 then it might be understood that only two decimal places of precision are available. Stating the result as 12.2300 makes clear that it is precise to four decimal places (in this case, six significant figures).
The significance of trailing zeros in a number not containing a decimal point can be ambiguous. For example, it may not always be clear if a number like 1300 is precise to the nearest unit (and just happens coincidentally to be an exact multiple of a hundred) or if it is only shown to the nearest hundred due to rounding or uncertainty. Various conventions exist to address this issue:
  A bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinculum_%28symbol%29) may be placed over the last significant figure; any trailing zeros following this are insignificant. For example, 1300 has three significant figures (and hence indicates that the number is precise to the nearest ten).
   The last significant figure of a number may be underlined; for example, "2000" has two significant figures.
   

the bars and underlines didn't come thru the formatting.. sorry.. check the original article in Wiki to see them...

Quote
A decimal point may be placed after the number; for example "100." indicates specifically that three significant figures are meant.^[2]
   In the combination of a number and a unit of measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_measurement), the ambiguity can be avoided by choosing a suitable unit prefix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_prefix). For example, the number of significant figures in a mass specified as 1300 g is ambiguous, while in a mass of 13 h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hecto-)‍g or 1.3 kg it is not.

With modern calculators there isn't any reason to delete non-sig digs in intermediate calculations; since you are going to give your final answer using only the number of sig digs in the least precise input figure, you can "round" or drop the extra digits at the end of the process. But it does no harm to drop or round to sig digs at every stage where it matters, either, or you'd never get anywhere using a slide rule.

(Daddy, what's a slide rule? I don't know son, better ask your grand dad.)

;)

Sure, context is everything... and that's why I object in the way I do, when the use of many digits is done just to make the reader go "wow" but they don't mean anything at all. Except the more non-sig-digs there are, the more precisely "wrong" the answer is, even if the arithmetic that was used to get there is completely error-free. This is not an "arithmetic" issue, it is a data integrity and analysis issue.

Thanks for asking, I hope that I haven't confused you more than ever.

--TK

Here'snoneohojhohvbb whyncnegncoy it'senaoscneeeg annoyinglnmolnn ton'oc=e seenoinonb superfluouscaeer meaninglesslno'udiurn digitsveaerac whensvaergaefaeec yousreareac areanocihncet tryingcerafacetaga tocean'vaetavavne evaluatenonsichiencee somenoihvoiyeince claimsno'inoihochentg ofdaercaeavaegag excessderafcvegaayv performancea'vdapoehgnerv.

Get it?

Yep I get the "Here's why it's annoying to see superfluous meaningless digits when you are trying to evaluate some claims of excess performance."
I also get that it's annoying to nit pick on some little detail of misunderstanding while missing the big picture that this person may really have something of great significance.   Getting hung up on sig digs will potentially be a big loss.  I've had PM's with Temporal Visitor and understand why he is trying to share this info at this time and why it is important for him to share it very soon.   I wish I could say more but it's not my right to share his personal disclosures to me (unrelated to details of the device or how it works).    I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.   My opinion - everyone's choice.

It wouldn't be the first time that a great idea got ignored or scoffed at because it was presented poorly. I think this is the "fault" or responsibility of the presenter, though, not the audience.

It also wouldn't be the first time that bogus claims were hidden behind a wealth of superfluous detail, nor would it be the first time that an arrogant inventor claimed to have discovered something that not only violates well-established principles of engineering mechanics but contradicted actual experience... and turned out later to be utterly wrong. Once again... not the responsibility of the audience, but of the claimant.

"I believe it would be best to give this related 'self looped generator' some more consideration.  "
Well, you are certainly able to read the Charles Pierce "blog" reports on PESN, I think. How's Chuckie coming with his _already proven and patented and running his house in a blackout_ self-looped generator then? Abut ready for the live demo?

I wasn't referring to Pierce's device but rather Temporal Visitor's device as covered on his web site.   I've come across enough talk of mechanical amplifiers lately that I think it's worth looking at in more detail.  I think his device involves this concept. 
Tesla found that mechanical power is relative to the "reference frame" within which it is created.  The implication is that if you make power in one reference frame and remove it from another, there can be either less or MORE power available from the system.  This leads directly to the development of "mechanical amplifiers".    That's more or less quoted from an email I got recently.   Several other people I consider high caliber inventors/researchers have also been seriously discussing this concept as shown by a number of inventors.   

Has anyone actually built an Hendershot generator yet, , if so what about the youtube link the 2 hour demo does it actually work, if so, i live in the UK and need to find somewhere  where they sell the unpolarised capacitor 500 micro farads ? Thank you x