Showcase of The Unity Generator : +200% OverUnity and climbing!

[Pirate88179]

Based on the Qmogen?

It must be real then as Sterling has said these devices really work.

Really people?

Come on, are we not smarter than this?  Really?

Self-looping is THE only way to really demonstrate a "real" O.U. device.

Why should they have to do this?  Because it is they that are making this extraordinary claim that's why.

Chet, thanks for making the effort to contact these folks.  We will see what happens.

Bill

[memoryman]

This is a 'product' of Steve Spisak; he has been making claims for years with the usual lack of a working unit.
He, with Sterling Allen, ran a very unsuccessful crowdfunding campaign, thoroughly debunked on
http://revolution-green.com/misleading-information-provide-indigo-go-overunity-camaign/
Steve collected moneys (half deposit) for non-existing product; sound familiar?

[Cap-Z-ro]

I believe the forum's resident arse kisser may be looped...he sure is looopy, after all.

Regards...

[TinselKoala]

This is a 'product' of Steve Spisak; he has been making claims for years with the usual lack of a working unit.
He, with Sterling Allen, ran a very unsuccessful crowdfunding campaign, thoroughly debunked on
http://revolution-green.com/misleading-information-provide-indigo-go-overunity-camaign/
Steve collected moneys (half deposit) for non-existing product; sound familiar?

Bingo! Thanks for the information. The comments on the R-G post are very interesting.

And the "Free Energy Party" appears to be a project of the famous Dave Parker.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Free_Energy_Party

[Poit]

If someone claims an electrical energy output of 35 times the electrical energy input, yet cannot show self-looped operation... what is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

If someone makes some light bulbs light up, and then uses the _nameplate wattage value_ of the bulbs instead of actual power and brightness measurements, what is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

If someone persists in using error-prone consumer-grade DMMs for measurements in support of their claims, instead of using real power analyzers and math-capable oscilloscopes properly operated, what is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

If someone responds to honest straightforward criticism and offers of independent no-cost testing, with pottymouth playground insults, what is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

If someone is asking for donations based on extreme claims like "3500 percent OU" or even "200 percent OU" but cannot provide _solid, irrefutable proof_ of those claims... what is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

I'll tell you Yet Again: Any competent electrical engineer, and most of the electronics hobbyists and researchers on this forum, would only need a _true_ OU ratio of 1.3 to 1, or 130 percent OU, in an electrical device to be able to make it self loop and run itself indefinitely.  Add another ten or twenty percent OU, say to 150 percent, and it will be able to power a substantial load while running itself. Yet here we see a claim of 3500 percent, or another at 200 percent, we see a load bank of lightbulbs using nameplate values rather than measurements of power and brightness, and we see a PayPal button... but no self-looper and no real independent testing of the claims. What is the appropriate conclusion to be drawn?

I love reading your well written replies. It is a shame most of your questions remain unanswered, to the degree they ought to be answered that is.


I would add my two cents to this thread, but you have already asked all the questions I would of asked.


Keep up the good work mate