http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pious_fraud

I've only seen this phrase used in terms of supposed religous miracles, but I realized that it may be the explanation for
all these devices, claimed to work; and then later claimed to be replicated by one or two other people, and then fallen
out of interest as unworkable. (then, of course, the next one comes along, and this one's got to be the real thing!)

Why do they do it?
The reasoning goes like this: Suppose I have a non-functional device that I really believe should work, if only
it could be "perfected..." So, I say it is already working, publish plans and maybe even a faked video. Why? Because this will
strongly encourage many other people to try to get it to work, with their own variations and improvements, some of them with
access to better and more expensive materials than my own failed prototype, and maybe one of them will succeed where
I have failed.

This is a distinctly different motive from the typically assumed either-or-case- that the inventor is mistaken and confused, or that
they are a malicious fraud interested in parting fools from their money. Instead, you have a well-intentioned liar, who
desperately wants to see a free energy machine happen for everyone's good. I believe that I've seen cases where this was
happening, and there was more than one liar independently choosing this strategy to keep the interest and experimentation going-
even mutually reinforcing each other's beliefs that someone out there really had got it working.


Think about it, it could really explain a lot...

I think to dig into why discoveries are not made and people make more mistakes that wise things is counterproductive. In saying that, I should also add that in many occasions there seems to be a reluctance to get to the bottom of the problem. Most often one sees jumping from project to project without really finishing and getting definitive results in any one of these projects. One way this could be explained is that many of the enthusiasts, although technically skilled, do not have the systematic training necessary for quality scientific research. Of course, ultimately lack of scientific training wouldn?t matter if the results are good. This unfortunately doesn?t happen very often in the area of free energy research.

There is also the situation in which the truth is not believed.

I think this might be Paul Sprain's dilemma at the moment.
I think he is not working on Emilie now, because he has learned from Emilie how to do it better.
That's what I would do.
If testing a prototype results in knowledge, it is worth while to build and test the prototype.
If the prototype is unable to support the research, time to scrap it and build another.

If while testing a steam engine there is a small explosion of cleaning fluid inside the cylinder, and I learn from it, I might scrap the steam engine and start work on an internal combustion engine.  The R&D process is sort of like that.

What if, in spite of all the well-intentioned lying (or non-well-intentioned) that others have done in the past, what is actually happening is as I have described above.
I think this is why countless basement experimenters have pursued overunity.  One day someone will succeed, they believe.
Maybe this is what is happening now.  Time will tell.  I think we are seeing the beginning of the 21st century.

Tom Schum

Tom Schum

The Paul Sprain magnetic motor is a nice design.  I have seen almost the identical design on Tom Beardon's web site.  It is called the "Wankel" magnetic motor.  Paul's motor seems to run fine, just a little slow, but if it has power (torque) it can make up for being slow (185 RPM no load or 95 RPM under simulated load). 

I am glad to see a device that uses magnets and spins.  I would wonder that if Paul were to mount on an axle 3 of his motors that are staggered so the sticky point is overcome by at least 2 other motors still gaining speed, on the same shaft, if he would need the electromagnet at all?  It should add to the torque of the motor.  I was suprised that the axial flux alternator that he put on his device only produced 3 watts max.  Sounds like he didn't have something working right or the motor just doesn't have much torque?

<<I would wonder that if Paul were to mount on an axle 3 of his motors that are staggered so the sticky point is overcome by at least 2 other <<motors still gaining speed, on the same shaft, if he would need the electromagnet at all?

Adding extra arms or rotors makes NO difference;-
Each added arm gives more push during the accelerating
part of the track. BUT each added arm causes more drag at the
sticking point. Net result = NO change.

The reason for the second arm in Emilie is simply for balance ... a single arm rotor, being asymmetrical,
would wobble ... the second magnet on the rotor makes no difference whatsoever to the complete-cycle energy balance, which is NOT over-unity, and never will be.