Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[baroutologos]

@ inventor,

Very liked your last reasoning. please, go on..

[conradelektro]

Dear inventor:

You say: "- even here - everyone thinks money will just fall from tree's when the O/U discovery is made. To use the need of money to deny a claim is unexperianced reasoning."

What we get over an over again is:

- It would work if I put in more money.

- It just has to be made bigger to work which needs money.

- The principle is clear, I just need money to build it.

- It only needs one more thing to work which I can not get or build without money.

- This shows how it should work in principle, but I can not build the real thing without money.

And so on, you probably understand what I want to say: It is difficult to get money for a principle which yet has to be shown to work.

Money comes in easily if there is substance. And the substance has to be pretty tangible in case of an OU claim because the OU-world is full of misguided individuals. Yes, we all want a new clean reliable and affordable energy. But a mere wish or intention will not be funded.

A working machine will make its way. But I doubt that one single individual will get the credit and the financial benefit. Like with all "discoveries" (in contrast to an "invention"), it needs many thinkers to bring it from concept to a useful technology.

Who "invented" electricity? Who "invented" atomic energy? Who "invented" the hydroelectric power station? Who "invented" the wind mill? Who invented photo voltaic? Who invented the steam engine, the combustion engine? There might be individuals who mad a big contribution, but they were never alone. A "new technology" is not "invented", it is "developed" over time by many people and in many ways.

The biggest idiocy in our time is "I invent something and then I will be rich". This can be true for a gadget (based on well known technology), but never for a "new technology".

Yes, financial rewards seldom fall in the right place. But this is a political issue and has nothing to do with "technology". Only the little guy has to follow the rules. The powerful ones just take what they want. You can never beat that with "ducks in a row".

So, what should a "inventor of an OU-device" do? I do not know, I have never seen one who did it right! First of all, I have never seen a working OU-device. And once we really see one, I am sure that  it can not be hidden. Who then reaps the benefits? I am sure it will not be us the people! And there will be hundreds of inventors and patent holders.

Greetings, Conrad

[baroutologos]

@ Condra,

you certtainly express a point based on what the man said, but i think lets give him a chance to explain the principle shall we?]

it maybe require large sums of money (lets assume for now) to run this machine cost efficiently, but a prototype i suppose could be constructed with a minimal amount of money and some tinkering right?

If that is not the case, even the inventor bears some real allien technology, since it cannot be easily replicated it would fall to the theory zone anyway.

ps: I suppose you have heard Kapanadze's last Hydro Ou alleged machine. perhaps it works on same technology? (how many could be there?)
Is that technology (fluid based) could be also sought at the electrical equivalence for easy replication or just try for an experiment (since electricity has astonishing resemblence to fluid mechanics)

ps2: this site by default goes to twilight zone. Everything said here should be treated with some tolerance. Otherwise, by default OU is out of the question so no need to talk about it, right?

[conradelektro]

@ Condra,

you certtainly express a point based on what the man said, but i think lets give him a chance to explain the principle shall we?]

Sorry, if I sound like a denier. I state what I need to see to make me believe. A investor has to see even more than me (a very tolerant searcher for OU).

The inventor wants to be believed. This is a lot to ask in case of an OU-claim.

If someone wants to explain his "invention", I am more than ready to listen. But I do not listen to "secrets" or "things that have to be protected". If you have a secret, keep it. If you have something to protect, hide it. But then, do not talk in riddles. Disclose it or seek investment (by help of nondisclosure agreements). There is no middle ground. The middle ground is gibberish and make believe. There are thousands of books and web sites talking about OU, they just can not deliver. I do not need more of that.

I am not making any rules, I state my unimportant opinion. Everybody can do as he pleases. For me there is no explanation without disclosure. But I do not demand disclosure, I demand consistency when something is said. "I have OU, but I can not tell you" is nonsense, that makes me sad. I have seen and heard it too often.

If people like to talk in riddles, fine, I will not take part in such a discussion. But many seem to like that. Fine, no problem. I will not interfere. If I have said to much, my apologies.

Greetings, Conrad

[mrwayne]

Conrad, very well said.

If you would like to see my working device - you are welcome to come on over, I love sharing the discovery, No one has gone away disappointed.

As far as experience of so many come and goes........ is that not with every attempt at innovation.

The process of discovery if full of failures, measurement errors, misguided at temps, and over optimistic claims.

When someone does hit it just right, like the "intermittent windshield wiper" .....no one worries anymore about the effort it took, the diligence it required, the tenacity to not give up. And yes, a big company comes and gobbles them up.

I wonder how many truly great ideas have went away from a need to fund, or to get people to listen.

I do not claim to have all the answers to the problem, but I do have a very over unity device.

A very good point you made: "Bigger"

When I built my first attempt - it was a "full scale bucket brigade" with modern improvements - that was before I truly understood how buoyancy worked - I have Photos. I learned a great deal with hands on and practical application.

(I am on design number seven - and it is works very well) I would say that I am an expert on what does not work, as well 

One thing I heard from critics, and have confirmed with my physical research is that if it does not work on the small, it will not work on the big - (with a little disclaimer - your drag in a over all system does not reduce at the same rate as you can reduce the design).

And in functionality - if drag is going to be an issue - your machine is not worth the effort to build.

My models 5 and 6 were also over unity, (125) those designs each had four energy conversions, at the end of the day - the only thing I had to "sell" was $300 worth of electrons (a year) from a $35,000 dollar machine.

Very much a waste of time, my goal has not been to disprove the laws of physics, but to build a system that produces in an abundance.

I am going to post this chat, and go back to explaining my system.

Thank all of you for the interest. It is en courageing.

Mr Wayne