Hi Folks,
As I get closer to prove my device achieves OU. I keep asking myself at what point do I achieve OU to satisfy the public. What test or experiments do I need to do?
Do I need to deliver it to their door and serve it on a silver platter?
Of course people will need to replicate it but doesn’t that just only confirms its claim? Is that the only way to claim OU ????
Does energy have to measure by electricity? Can it be measure by lifting a weight higher for example?
What about Time? For how long?
This thread may help guide others conclude weather their device reached OU too.
Just wondering
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
First of all , these kinda of devices are just useless for the reality we live in .
We have cars to drive and generators to run , that is not the answer to anything even if it was OU.
Extracting energy from magnets is useless ?
If so then batteries are useless ?
I not tiring to focus too much on my device but for any device.
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PM
Hi Folks,
As I get closer to prove my device achieves OU. I keep asking myself at what point do I achieve OU to satisfy the public. What test or experiments do I need to do?
Dramatic over the top demonstrations that get you on local, state, and national television. How about creating a levitating craft with you in it using the energy from the on-board batteries and surrounding ambient heat? I would give this a 10 years shot.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMDo I need to deliver it to their door and serve it on a silver platter?
Do not rely on a silver tongue. Instead, do demonstrations that people like Paul Moller could only dream of. There are so many non-flying OU demonstrations that went on TV, and they went NOWHERE. Make it FLY.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMOf course people will need to replicate it but doesn’t that just only confirms its claim? Is that the only way to claim OU ????
If you want to bring this to the world, that is NOT that way to show the general public that is overunity. By just proving it using technicalities, people WILL know about it, but not many people will care.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMDoes energy have to measure by electricity?
That is only necessary for convincing technicians. Selling only to technicians, however, will only sell to insiders. The market for OU is not like the market for renewable energy. It hasn't been marketed to the general non-technical public. The reason simply is there is no marketable supply of overunity devices. Free publicity IS essential. I expect no less than $1 billion US in free advertising of OU devices before you can expect them to hit the market, NO MATTER how efficient, practical, or proven the device is.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMCan it be measure by lifting a weight higher for example?
Of course!
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMWhat about Time? For how long?
Time? No more than a day. The energy should be enough to do something amazing, such as a cross-country flight, or some other amazing feat.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMThis thread may help guide others conclude weather their device reached OU too.
Reaching OU is a far cry from making it viable in the global economy.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
kmarinas86
Interesting point of view that it needs to perform an amazing feat.
The wow factor would probably help.
As for the global economy. I believe basic supply and demand would kick in.
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 12, 2009, 06:03:48 PM
Hi Folks,
As I get closer to prove my device achieves OU. I keep asking myself at what point do I achieve OU to satisfy the public. What test or experiments do I need to do?
Do I need to deliver it to their door and serve it on a silver platter?
Of course people will need to replicate it but doesn’t that just only confirms its claim? Is that the only way to claim OU ????
Does energy have to measure by electricity? Can it be measure by lifting a weight higher for example?
What about Time? For how long?
This thread may help guide others conclude weather their device reached OU too.
Just wondering
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
hi good day! ;D
for me at least 3 full day is enough to say we have achieved real ou.
and in one week we are beginning to make some over designing some materials that can't last long ok. 8)
battery is the best source i'm telling you just discover the best how to use it better ok. ;)
All that you have to do is make something that self-runs. You don't need to drive a load or do anything dramatic at all, just so something that self-runs. It could be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand or weigh two tons, it doesn't matter. It could be electrical or mechanical, it doesn't matter. If you do that you don't need to spend a cent on advertising at all, the story would make the front page of CNN dot com for months.
In the Bedini "story" there are various references to Bedini making self-runners but the device couldn't produce any useful torque or electricity, and John Bedini shelved the device and moved on because it was "not practical" or whatever the alleged quote is. I have seen many free energy experimenters make reference to this in their postings and seemingly accepting that as a fact of life and leaving it at that.
That is just totally crazy because like I said above, producing any kind of self runner is by definition a free energy device and the news would be bigger than the moon landing in 1969. The fact that John Bedini "moved on" is just completely outrageous and totally ridiculous. If you tune your collective noses you should be able to smell that something is not right about the Bedini story - alleged Men in Black and the whole enchilada.
Howard you are up against the fact that you can't extract any energy from magnets, they are as dead as proverbial doorknobs. I know that you don't believe that, you are just going to have to prove it for yourself.
The real message behind this posting is just try to find your Holy Grail - and we are not fudging with the definition here - wind and solar and hydro and geothermal don't count - only the real thing counts.
Imagine any device that you could put inside a transparent Lucite cube that runs by itself, and only by itself. That means it does not run on external thermal energy, or external sound energy, or external vibrational energy, or external light energy, or external electromagnetic energy, or external wind energy, and so on.
Put something that can run itself inside a transparent Lucite cube of any size and then you have something.
Some people are truly naive.
WB, asking that question here is like asking "who is the most beautiful woman". Everyone will have his own opinion and the conversation will get nowhere. When anyone stumbles across OU he'll damn well know it. As for getting on news site for months...that's dumb talk from people who know jack shit about history. All you need to worry about is spreading the device far and wide, keep fame and fortune at bay. Let the skeptics rot in their armchair's trying to debunk something that is used all over the world.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PM
All that you have to do is make something that self-runs. You don't need to drive a load or do anything dramatic at all, just so something that self-runs. It could be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand or weigh two tons, it doesn't matter. It could be electrical or mechanical, it doesn't matter. If you do that you don't need to spend a cent on advertising at all, the story would make the front page of CNN dot com for months.
In the Bedini "story" there are various references to Bedini making self-runners but the device couldn't produce any useful torque or electricity, and John Bedini shelved the device and moved on because it was "not practical" or whatever the alleged quote is. I have seen many free energy experimenters make reference to this in their postings and seemingly accepting that as a fact of life and leaving it at that.
That is just totally crazy because like I said above, producing any kind of self runner is by definition a free energy device and the news would be bigger than the moon landing in 1969. The fact that John Bedini "moved on" is just completely outrageous and totally ridiculous. If you tune your collective noses you should be able to smell that something is not right about the Bedini story - alleged Men in Black and the whole enchilada.
Howard you are up against the fact that you can't extract any energy from magnets, they are as dead as proverbial doorknobs. I know that you don't believe that, you are just going to have to prove it for yourself.
The real message behind this posting is just try to find your Holy Grail - and we are not fudging with the definition here - wind and solar and hydro and geothermal don't count - only the real thing counts.
Imagine any device that you could put inside a transparent Lucite cube that runs by itself, and only by itself. That means it does not run on external thermal energy, or external sound energy, or external vibrational energy, or external light energy, or external electromagnetic energy, or external wind energy, and so on.
Put something that can run itself inside a transparent Lucite cube of any size and then you have something.
@MH
Your right in your statement , that describe exactly what a "Overunity" device should be able to do . To be honest, i dont think that will ever exist. People get confuse between Free Energy and Overunity.
For exemple, Bearden NEVER EVER talked about getting energy from nowhere, it talk about "Vacuum" in a sense that mean there ALREADY ALOT of energy everywhere.If we find a way to tap it, we can extract ANY amount of energy but do that mean overunity ? only a retard will think that, its like if we find a spot on the earth where the wind blow 24/24 7/7 , we can extract power at will, but its not overunity.
There some problem with people working on this field , ALOTS dont have enought knowledge, thinking out of the box mean you need to know where the box is first.They try to find anomaly without first learning what is "Normal", total non-sense IMO.Second thing is equipment, without good equipment they will never find anything even if its in front of them.
IMO people focus too much on schematic and not enought on theory.If you dont know what is the theory about the source you try to catch, there no point at all to work on schematic,its like building a nuclear reactor without knowing first how uranium will be used inside it, total non sense. When you know the theory, you know how to prove it, if not , you will have to learn a bit more but at the end will are able to tap it if the theory was correct,Like a radio receiver, if you build it to tap X frequency, you will succeed, else , only the noise of deception.
MH, Your one of the few on this forum who keep a scientific view when they analize something, i realy hope more will follow your way, maybe someday we will have finaly something working, i dont expect overunity but energy at will for everybody.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
the void energy from the vaccum is less the nothing and more than anything which means it's unbalanced...but what 99.9% of the people don't know is that every thing has the power to create..too big for words to explain.
Broli:
Naivete is in the eye of the beholder. The argument is that it is not subjective, like judging appearance, but objective, based on facts. The proposition for someones device being an over unity device is simply true or false. The frame of reference is the understanding of what energy is. We are all under the assumption that we understand what energy is here? If you claim that you understand what constitutes energy, then you must be in a postion to be able to decide if it is true or false.
The announcement of "cold fusion" in 1989 is the frame of reference for the argument about how big a news story this would be. Twenty years later information travels twenty times as fast. That's the history you must look at.
I won't debunk something that's used all over the word. All that somebody has to do is produce a device that is true.
IceStorm:
"Energy from the vacuum" and the concept of transferring this energy into "our reality" are just ideas, nothing more than that. Those are the facts right now.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 09:49:07 PM
IceStorm:
"Energy from the vacuum" and the concept of transferring this energy into "our reality" are just ideas, nothing more than that. Those are the facts right now.
MileHigh
MH,
That was just a allegory.
Best Regards,
IceStorm
Guys,
There is no wrong or right answer. I post this topic simply to gauge what people think. I do have my own opinion and will act upon it. The fact of the matter is when I’m finish with this test unit. I will be facing a farther challenge then what this forum can ever come up with. I will have to face the world.
If people want to debate it, So be it.
If people want to get angry, Bring it!
If people want to voice their option, I welcome it.
Howard
Latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hello WattBuilder,
thank you for this interesting demonstration. I really wonder about some of the members her just talk and talk leading nowhere as one member has already stated.
Now I have one practical question :
You said in your presentation that both sticks ( upper lever ) have the same weight, but this is just one necessary conditions of two. The other condition is the center of mass of each stick.
Can you please measure the center of mass of your two sticks with the stone and the magnet attached and repeat your experiment ? Where is this masspoint of each stick located ? For this purpose just take out the sticks and balance each stick on your finger and mark it. I have the feeling that the center of mass of both sticks is not at the same level.
Only if this is the case you can compare the two processes.
Regards
Kator01
Hi Kator01,
I have made some progress since the demo of the YOG’s one cycle video. The YOG is now modified and the lever too.
I was anticipating this question.
Both sticks are made of PVC pipe found at a local hardware store. They were both cut from the same piece of pipe. Both were weighed down to the 100th of an ounce. The stone and the drive magnet assembly were repeatedly checked, including the screw that holds it.
The masspoint is about 8 inches close to the neck of the stone and drive magnet.
Now remember that there was a gain about 15 inches. If the masspoint was lower it will show the gain less because the lever ratio would be less. For example 7:1 ratio is better than 4:1
One way to get the same effect of the gain in the video is to increase the mass point higher. But as you can see there is no way to increase the length longer past the array of magnets without hitting them.
Can you post this over at my main thread? As I would like to keep this topic separate?
I’m gland you like my video. I hope more people can get a chance to see it.
Cheers
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
After you complete your unit, and if it accellerates continuously - the world will need to face you, not the other way around. It will not require explanation, a straight forward demonstration will do the trick.
Good luck.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PM
All that you have to do is make something that self-runs. You don't need to drive a load or do anything dramatic at all, just so something that self-runs.
It would be heard worldwide but not the whole world will know. A self-running device might have shock value to someone who is knowledgeable of current physics. The general public will just find it "interesting" or "nifty" at best, but will find no instant gratification by watching it. Even a demonstration "staged" in public would attract attention. That has been done before many times. Newman is an example of that. That is still not good enough. Attention to the device will have to be ON FIRE. Why? You will need people who are outside science, engineering, or even mechanical hobbies to be clamoring support for your device. I conclude this from my observations of the Newman's campaign for his energy machine. Obviously the demonstrations should be spectacular. Yet even "spectacular" will far short if it not just plain obvious and in your face. IT HAS TO FLY -> NO wires beneath. Anything less looks gimmicky or easy to squash -> Not proof.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMIt could be small enough to fit in the palm of your hand or weigh two tons, it doesn't matter.
This interests engineers, not the numbers of people necessary who create the demand which create the market for these things.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMIt could be electrical or mechanical, it doesn't matter. If you do that you don't need to spend a cent on advertising at all, the story would make the front page of CNN dot com for months.
True. BUT the amount of "free advertising" equivalent has to be in the billions. To think that this will be demanded worldwide as a result of the same level of publicity received by the Heene balloon family is extremely naive. It is hopelessly orthodox to rely on a few dozen tv news segments to spread awareness of this kind of thing. The reason is simply because if it manages to only go that far, it is too esoteric to attract much attention from big AND small investors of the world. If you are OK with allowing free energy ONLY to a few, than I am not for you at all.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMIn the Bedini "story" there are various references to Bedini making self-runners but the device couldn't produce any useful torque or electricity, and John Bedini shelved the device and moved on because it was "not practical" or whatever the alleged quote is.
Bedini never made it to CNN, FOX News, etc. The absence of widespread use of the Bedini device is NO COINCIDENCE.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMI have seen many free energy experimenters make reference to this in their postings and seemingly accepting that as a fact of life and leaving it at that.
That is just totally crazy because like I said above, producing any kind of self runner is by definition a free energy device and the news would be bigger than the moon landing in 1969.
B.S. It doesn't even take a mention of "free energy suppression" to show why people would not automatically know. Even in the absence of suppression, the truth is that most humans are not "energy nerds". To inspire them, you need shock value. It sounds sinister, but it is often underlooked as a barrier to communication. If only technicians or scientists care, then it is not news. Joseph Newman derived shock value in the public by his character, and to technicians through his machines. The truth is that the reaction by the public must be much more laudable than that by the technicians.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMThe fact that John Bedini "moved on" is just completely outrageous and totally ridiculous. If you tune your collective noses you should be able to smell that something is not right about the Bedini story - alleged Men in Black and the whole enchilada.
Or perhaps the general public simply doesn't care. I know why. The Bedini apparatus doesn't operate with splendor observable to the average person. Many people who are in the "free energy" movement are out of touch with the people outside that movement in that they think that just because their "machine technically" works that someone from outside will care. You have to defeat the "energy nerd" stigma.
For people who are creative enough to develop a free-energy device, they are almost NEVER "left-brained" enough to discover the tact needed to take a device into mass production. There is at least one exception, Randell Mills.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMHoward you are up against the fact that you can't extract any energy from magnets, they are as dead as proverbial doorknobs. I know that you don't believe that, you are just going to have to prove it for yourself.
True. Pure magnetic motors are a pathetic waste of time.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMThe real message behind this posting is just try to find your Holy Grail - and we are not fudging with the definition here - wind and solar and hydro and geothermal don't count - only the real thing counts.
Imagine any device that you could put inside a transparent Lucite cube that runs by itself, and only by itself. That means it does not run on external thermal energy, or external sound energy, or external vibrational energy, or external light energy, or external electromagnetic energy, or external wind energy, and so on.
That is too much to ask for. If your energy source is intangible, you will not inspire the world into replacing fossil fuels with your devices. Your only outlet of hope is to claim that your converting mass into energy, and unless your output is spectacular, you cannot prove it.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 13, 2009, 08:10:54 PMPut something that can run itself inside a transparent Lucite cube of any size and then you have something.
Something boring (midly interesting at best) to anyone who is not a "techno geek".
Quote from: IceStorm on October 13, 2009, 08:52:14 PMThere some problem with people working on this field , ALOTS dont have enought knowledge, thinking out of the box mean you need to know where the box is first.They try to find anomaly without first learning what is "Normal", total non-sense IMO.Second thing is equipment, without good equipment they will never find anything even if its in front of them.
Sensible comment.
Quote from: IceStorm on October 13, 2009, 08:52:14 PMIMO people focus too much on schematic and not enought on theory.If you dont know what is the theory about the source you try to catch, there no point at all to work on schematic,its like building a nuclear reactor without knowing first how uranium will be used inside it, total non sense. When you know the theory, you know how to prove it, if not , you will have to learn a bit more but at the end will are able to tap it if the theory was correct,Like a radio receiver, if you build it to tap X frequency, you will succeed, else , only the noise of deception.
Exactly.
double post