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