The Solution vs Hoax equation

[TinselKoala]

Ah... the Quanta charger. Yes, I remember that one pretty much as you do.
You are right about the "back-channel" communication network. Nobody but Stefan knows the depths of that web or who is talking to whom. I've got some doozies in my PM box from people trying to get me involved in one thing or another... Mister Wayne even asked about the possibility of hiring me, isn't that a laugh? And I have a few friends that I talk about this and that with in PMs too.

Back to the Quanta thing. Well, it's a case of effects interpreted in certain ways, tight control of real data, and perhaps a bit of exaggerated hyperbole to get the pot stirred up and cooking.  They are making and selling a nice little PWM controller unit, more power to them. But would they have reached their target customer base as easily, had they not shown something remarkable?

I have no real data, but I can speculate. There is one bit of real knowledge I can share with you, though: any motor that uses cylindrical coils with one pole pointing out into space is wasting half of the magnetic field of that coil. Perhaps that's important for the "effect"... but I will guarantee more torque, and stronger HV spikes, if both ends of the coil ( and both ends of any PMs) are put to work. The ideal setup for a pulse motor/generator with PMs in the rotor would be to have your coils wound on "toroids with a gap" and have your rotor turning thru the gap. This would put both poles of the electromagnets pushing or pulling or engaging in core effect, working with/against both poles of each rotor magnet: optimal use of the magnetic field for no extra cost in current (essentially doubling the field for the same current), no waste.
It is very rare to see pulse motor aficionadoes using all the magnetic circuit. But real commercial motor designers always do: They even include mu-metal shells on simple DC can motors to close the magnetic circuit from the stator magnets that would otherwise be wasted outside the can.

Anyhow... if anyone has a Quanta setup that they would like to test, let me know and we can work out a procedure. Beyond that, my impression of how the Quanta system works is pretty  much contained in what I saw when I clicked thru to watch the video:
(Sorry... it is actually pretty hard for me to take this seriously, when stuff like this comes up. I must be the last person on the planet who does not allow ads or make money from my YT videos. Maybe I should start.)

[TinselKoala]

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk

[audiomaker]

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk

Thanks.  The problem for me is that my own past pursuits only involve one or two concepts and there are so many concepts out there that it is daunting to even try to become educated on one, let alone all of them.

What that means simply is that I only have one qualification that is written in crayon.... does the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself (on the whole at least).

You can imagine for someone that a machine is presented and the math-minded begin to present problems with the equation, and I'm sitting here thinking ..."math?".  Is it self running or is it not?

While I am not beyond examining the physics math behind any device, every time I begin do so, my brain begins to question why I'm doing math at all when I'm looking at what appears to be a self running machine?

Now in the example of the last link I provided... "quanta" was it?...  The device appears to be self running, accelerating, and producing an increasing voltage output.  In fact, I don't even care if it produces a voltage output (much), I am only interested in the fact that it appears to be under self power.

The best way I can describe it is that I feel "stunned" by what I am witnessing, while at the same time watching the other responses such as "Nice work!... have you considered using a different factor in your cap's?".   Um... who cares?

To me there is no point in discussing a fake machine, and if the machine is real...well...we'll figure out why it works, who's concept it is modeled after, and how to improve upon it... later, or let NASA figure it out.

In the example in that thread, I only care if the energy that is producing motion is coming from an outside hidden source (ie...a fake), or if somehow the energy was stored (and enough of it) in those cap's to explain it running for the length of time that it did (ie...a mistake), or if it is actually a closed loop device producing more power than it took to begin the process.
If the later is true, I'd rather spend my time figuring out if I could get on a plane to see it and help verify it than all the other commentary I witness.  If you read through that thread, you will observe the commentary I'm speaking of.

Instead, if feels like we missed the window.  The group just yacked about it and possibly there were some offline channels, and it's gone....err..faded away.

Even if the machine is a fake, I'd like to see a consensus and some evidence that it is a fake.  That device was possibly a good candidate for pro-active verification.

It leaves my mind very unsettled.  I mean... it's pinned on this board why and to what end?

[audiomaker]

Grrr... I have to continue...

I am getting quite frustrated by this and I'm going to rant a little...

I just re-read the thread and each time I read it I get more aggravated.

7 pages of noise, clutter, and a whiff of smoke.

This is how that should have gone...

1. Person from OU.com validation team contacts the inventor and asks "Would you allow 3 unrelated independent persons from our board to fly to your location and verify your device?", fully explaining to them that experts would be arriving who would quickly discredit any hoax, fraud, or mistake... and that the results would be published publicly.

2. If the answer is "no thanks", that is published.  If the answer is "No Problem", then 3 independent team members call the inventor on the phone and discuss his device.

3. The 3 members report to the board their opinion on if they all feel that this is worthy of "fund money" to investigate.

4.  If there is a consensus,  All 3 fly to the location immediately and validate or discredit the device and the inventor.

5. All tests, data, video, results are submitted in real time (ie...same day) to the board as they arrive.

6. Go from there.

It takes a day or two, a couple phone calls, and perhaps a couple more days to verify....done.

Instead they're talking about space aliens in the thread.

[Tusk]

Very insightful audiomaker. For what it's worth, I agree with most if not all of your observations - not necessarily in relation to that specific device but in general.

May I just point out what seems an unnecessary specification for meeting OU? You stated

does the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself

.... and I point here to the use of the word 'continuously'. Since the universe is asymmetric (Lee & Yang, 1956 or if you prefer a more tangible asymmetry, energy and matter) would it not be reasonable to expect that a device capable of encouraging motion (energy) in matter capitalising on this bias might be cyclic in nature? No doubt fusion stands as the prime example of a continuous release of, shall we say 'pressure' for want of a better term, into our material realm. But since such a method carries with it the risk of a sudden and catastrophic event due to failure of the flow control system we might prefer to realise our energy needs by use of some cyclic device which by it's very nature can be kept under firm control.

The Paradox Engine is cyclic btw - and apparently therefore does not pass even your first level of scrutiny?