How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?

[gmbajszar]

Artificial unity.
Overbalanced Artificial.
Perpetual Unity.
It hurts when people don't believe it.

[Lancair-ES]

@ Phaedrus,

YES, I believe it's possible.  Just try to film the unit from ALL SIDES and the BOTTOM.
Those of us that Still Have a Brain will recognize OVERUNITY when we see it.

Of course there are paid TROLLS out there that are Constant NAY SAYERS,
BUT just ignore them and MOVE FORWARD.

Thank you for wanting to HELP the WORLD.


                                                                          .

Can you explain how overunity can be recognized? Even IF it was possible to achieve, I have a feeling that it would take more than a brain to figure out why it is overunity.
Moving forward to a destination infinitely far away would not get you any closer. Moving forward by increasing efficiency closer to 100% would be more possible. The goal must first be to find a way to recycle energy effectively. Then you can try to increase efficiency further. Approaching 80-90% efficiency is hard enough. Making it 95-99% would be a sensation.

[phaedrus]

It may well be true that a video will never convince a Hard-Core Skeptic like MarkE.  But what if this Hard-Core Skeptic were to have a working Bessler Wheel right in front of him, rotating away?  Would the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Could the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Or would it be necessary to dismantle the machine before they would be convinced?  And even if that were done, I wonder if they would be convinced.  If you are so wedded to a certain view of the way the universe works, it might be very hard to have that view shattered (not even "might", it WOULD be).

But what I wanted to say was, IF this person could be convinced, IF it is possible to convince this person, then I would think that sure it is possible to do this with a video.  After all, think about it.  We possess 5 senses:  sight, hearing, touch, taste & smell.  A video recorder is able to make a streaming record of 2 of those senses.  Would the other 3 senses, taste, smell, or touch ever enter into what is necessary to do that convincing?  Taste and smell, I don't think so. Touch, possibly, but let's assume not.   Well then, let's let the person we are convincing go through all the motions they need to do to be convinced.  Now, repeat that same activity, except substitute a video camera for the person's eyes (perhaps they need to be seeing this with stereoscopic vision - well then, record the video stereoscopically) and (a) microphone(s) synchronized to the video for their ears.  Wouldn't that person then be convinced the same way they have been convinced before, seeing (and hearing) exactly what they had seen before?

But I wonder.  If a scientist had a working Bessler Wheel today, but it was the same deal as back in Johann Bessler's time, where he would not be allowed to see inside to know what is making it work, would that scientist be able to convince themselves that this was a Perpetual Motion Machine?

[fletcher]

Absolutely not, & rightly so, without the definitive proof of math, or a working wheel that can be first dismantled to see the mechanics & then be independently replicated by others & validated, IMO.

Evidence & facts trump opinion, speculation & belief.

[MarkE]

It may well be true that a video will never convince a Hard-Core Skeptic like MarkE.  But what if this Hard-Core Skeptic were to have a working Bessler Wheel right in front of him, rotating away?  Would the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Could the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Or would it be necessary to dismantle the machine before they would be convinced?  And even if that were done, I wonder if they would be convinced.  If you are so wedded to a certain view of the way the universe works, it might be very hard to have that view shattered (not even "might", it WOULD be).

But what I wanted to say was, IF this person could be convinced, IF it is possible to convince this person, then I would think that sure it is possible to do this with a video.  After all, think about it.  We possess 5 senses:  sight, hearing, touch, taste & smell.  A video recorder is able to make a streaming record of 2 of those senses.  Would the other 3 senses, taste, smell, or touch ever enter into what is necessary to do that convincing?  Taste and smell, I don't think so. Touch, possibly, but let's assume not.   Well then, let's let the person we are convincing go through all the motions they need to do to be convinced.  Now, repeat that same activity, except substitute a video camera for the person's eyes (perhaps they need to be seeing this with stereoscopic vision - well then, record the video stereoscopically) and (a) microphone(s) synchronized to the video for their ears.  Wouldn't that person then be convinced the same way they have been convinced before, seeing (and hearing) exactly what they had seen before?

But I wonder.  If a scientist had a working Bessler Wheel today, but it was the same deal as back in Johann Bessler's time, where he would not be allowed to see inside to know what is making it work, would that scientist be able to convince themselves that this was a Perpetual Motion Machine?

People's senses are highly fallible.  One of the least reliable types of evidence is eye witness testimony. 

The best evidence of a scientific claim is multiple successful independent replications.

Strong evidence of the energy capacity of a machine is that machine delivering its energy into a load established and monitored by an independent third party.  Strong evidence that the device is not consuming an internal fuel is when under such test conditions the machine delivers more energy than could be stored inside by any known fuel.  Strong evidence that a machine is not receiving energy from the outside through trickery or inadvertent RF is when the machine is tested independently by a third party under conditions and at locations such as inside an RF screen room that are under the third party's control.