Richard VIALLE's new theory about negative mass and overunity

[Pascuser]

OK

Thanks Pascuser for your honesty and quick rectification

so i am always very motivated to step in

so my begin in replication

hope this will encourage some of you to join the replication

good luck at all

Laurent

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, at least the first replication device in this topic! As with null number of replication up to now, I thought before fench men were the only one able to bend a copper tube

So you will be able to do your own measurement and tests, and this is valuable as to do your own measurements. You will be able to make you own COP overunity measurement.

I don't understand why other people here with electronic equipment did not do such measurement at home, to see that with no trick at all we have more output power from the autogenerateur than consumed on his input... the one with an oscilloscope and function generator, two metal resistors and a copper tube with winding can do it and test everything.

From the starting of this topic I was here to have people doing the same and stating themselves, instead of being suspicious and only argue with words in their mouth as only tool. Because the device itself is so easy to do: a copper tube, you bent it, you wind. And no more.

Function generator with no amplifier is enough for all first tests, to demonstrate overunity. Oscillocope to do mthe measurement. I fist thought tahn on overunity forums there would be people with a function generator and an ocilloscope, maybe not everybody; but a lot; so what remains (a copper tube) is so easy ... that a testing was the first thing to do; and why I went here.

You are the first one willing not only to speak and watch, but doing! This is valuable. Why others did not do the same I can't understand.

Glad to see your beginning. I will help you with advices if you need.

[PARAV]

OK

Thanks Pascuser for your honesty and quick rectification

so i am always very motivated to step in

so my begin in replication

hope this will encourage some of you to join the replication

good luck at all

Laurent

Hi Woopy, or Anyone,

May I ask you why this thread came to a sudden end back in Oct.2012 as it looked kind of promising with even JLN showing some good documented results.

Can you shed some light on the demise of this thread??

I know that most of the info was coming to us from a French forum and I may have lost the answer in some of the back and forth translations there.--so, just curious to know what happened to it though.

Thanking you in advance,

Paul

[Pascuser]

These topics are hot topics with research and new interesting developments on the french forum with french men.

As nobody never showed interest here except woopy I never went here to give more in english. I never ended translations since nobody was interested with it. I only read attacks here, except woopy working on it. The stime spent to make subtitles for the interview showing the whole work of Richard VIALLE never gave any return; so all the work is english was only equal to zero return, so I adde zero work. An experimental work was much more interesting than speaking in a space with only echos answering.

We succeded (I say we, but it is not me because, it is another person, there are many researchers on this subject) in having back energy on the input with an amplifying aspect, usable.

The U generator has been proved many times overunity; I did it many times, JLN did it many times and measured it by other kind of apparatus; and three other person measured many times and published it, all on the french forum. An official website centralises these resultats (in french!). As nobody showed interest in english speaking world, we did not make any other efforts.

The system can have an enormous COP, 2 or 100 or 1000 or 10000 or infinity if you want. But this is something not understood here; although I explained it many times: yes there is huge COP; and people don't believe it. Because they DON'T read what I wrote and only explained what is in their mind in a cycling way; they thing that it should work as in their mind.

As I explained it, the system has a COP up to infinity, but not because output grows, but because input diminushes. For example you have 100mW output with 80mW input. If you set up the device more correctly, you will have 100mW output for 20mW input and with fine tuning you can have 100mW output for 0,5mW input; and fore some other tuning you can have 100mW output with -20mW input (yes the input doesn' consume but delivers power while output delivers power too!). But you only have 100mW.

People not reading say "you are a liar with a 1 000 000 COP, you would use it to power your house". They say that because they DON'T read anything and only speak in an empty space. You CAN'T power anything because your 1 000 000 COP does mean that you still have 100mW output for only 0.0001 mW input. Only the input is reduced, the output doesn't vary. You can have negative input, so it is free, but small output only, constant (in fact varying with input, but not in orders of the input, so you can have 80mW of output power if input is 0.5mW and 100mW of output power if input is 20mW. Lets say to simplify that output powers is the same because it varies not much; but input varies very very much).

But with 100mW, you don't power anything. What was the way of research has always been to grow up output power. We could have some watts; only about 5Watts to 7Watts, no more with a little COP only COP=2 for this greater output power.

The inventor was seeking to have a usable power not on the output, but on the input;, since with negative power on the input you can't define what is COP. The COP grows because the device delivers its overunity power as a substraction on the input, and not as an addition to the input. It is why you can reduce input to zero (COP= infinity) and even input negatice (COP not defined). So he worked this way and there have been results.

I know that someone on the french forum wants to spread again informations on the net in english about this work; and I gave the advice NOT to spend time going on overunity since it was a lost time, nobody working on it. People want to have time on fake researches with attractinbg promises. The U generator has nothing to attract with giant promises, but it has showed a clear overunity. Only this aspect is thr biggest, scientific and published measurement showing the reality of overunity clearly. But we don't announce kilowatts of output like many others, and nobody takes times to understand that a COP=1 000 000 anouncement is not fake because the don't understand the basic way it is true and only imagine "let us inject 10watts input, we have 10 000 000 watts output, this is not reasonnable and you lie". Yes this is not reasonnable because IT IS NOT with this conditions it works; you don't decide inputs, it is not a multiplier machine. I never said that you have 10 000 000W output, but when people imagine and you say it is not that way, they only go elsewhere and say tyou are a liar. This has been what I saw on overunity, so not spending more time for this kind of person.

Another thing: the electronic artillery you have to use to inject the input power is actually huge (because of function generator and voltage amplifier with big losses, classic electronic devices). So when you want to inject let's say 20mW of input power you will spend maybe 10Watts for this electronic; and you will get output power 100mW. So the device is clearly overunity COP=100mW/20mW=5 and this is a physic anomaly. But as you had to spend 10watts to have a net gain of 100mW-20mW=80mW you have nothing usable if you look at the whole chain going from batteries to power the whole electronic to the output. Since 80mW=10W=0.08/10=0.008 you have nothing gained! So I I said, we don't offer the moon. We offer real overunity, output VS input. But the way it works did not allow anything more.

It is why the inventor made some other tries. In fact with some tunings there has been possible to power a 10watts lamp with no battery consuling (batteries powering the whole chain recharging!); but this has been done in old work with sponsors of the inventor not wanting to share. I replicated it my best and two times I could have a no battery depletion with output of somes watts during more than one hour. But I could do it only two times.

So I said that the inventor tried other ways to have usable power and there has been more success like this. The detail I won't explian here because english is not my native language.

So if you are interested to read more about it, and in english, you can wait that the forum member makes translations and spreads it, but don't even think to find it on overunity: I told him not to lose time going here.

Sorry for this bad english, since french men understand better english than they write it.
Thanks for your interest.

[d3x0r]

I don't find useful information about the U... what is important about it?  The length?  The number of turns? the gauge of the outer wire?  Is the copper U driven or is the coil on it driven?  is there a design criteria?  I tried to go through the french forum but just saw testing information not construction information

[Pascuser]

All replication notes are indicated in the posts at the beginning here:
http://www.overunity.com/12639/richard-vialles-new-theory-about-negative-mass-and-overunity/msg337174/#msg337174

http://www.overunity.com/12639/richard-vialles-new-theory-about-negative-mass-and-overunity/msg337176/#msg337176

I had beginned a translation, never achieved because of no interest in english world.
Here is the unfinished translation of the document concrning the 1st generation of autogenerateur:
http://zedico.info/Extraits_Publics/Pascuser/selfgenerator_1.pdf