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

[mscoffman]

Majestic1,

If you are responsible for the Anonymous Manufacturing Proposal please do continue to support and
pursue that part of this. You will eventually find someone with an operable Qmogen type device. I am
sure of it.

---

On the other hand the Qmogen you are showing as part of this post is non-operable.
First the PSU power supply unit shown should be nearly 100% Watts efficient Watts in ~= Watts out.
You will notice this shown as being 10% efficient. No good. You need to *measure* these numbers
at the same time.
Second there is no reason to hang large high voltage capacitors on the output of the generator
The generator should already be at a power factor of 1:1 as is. Adding additional capacitance only
serves to make it resonant with the inductance in the generator. This would be done
only to fool instrumentation. A useful OU system will have the energy going to the device be
at exactly 50Hz or 60Hz which is under rpm control. Also to have a useful system means separating
the loop power from the excess power so that the excess power can all be directed toward the user load.
Remember too, that motor nameplate load cannot be used unless the motor is mechanically loaded
just like the generator cannot be considered running at rated mechanical load unless there is a rated
electrical load on it. The saws cannot be considered operating at nameplate load unless they are sawing
something. Which is very difficult to make continuous.

As you may be able to now see, you have to be able to demonstrate the system is self running because
only a self running system would be able to make excess energy. Excess energy is the only kind of energy
a user is going to want. The most likely reason that a system is not self looping is that it *cannot* be looped
therefore is not OU.

You need to avoid the "My (expensive) instrumentation says thus and so is happening, therefore it must be" attitude
in favor of energy = time @ (times) power form of thinking.
You need to avoid the "We can't self loop because the type of energy we produce can't be self looped" attitude because
self looping electrical energy has only one type and that is the only the one users want.

Consider the QEG - only an actually satisfactorily operating device meets the users' Goal. I would never claim
that something was meeting users' goal when it was not really meeting them as I consider doing so fraud.
That doesn't make me a critic, it makes me honest.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[PIH123]

It is really more the mood in the sceptizism in postings like TKs or PIHs. Very unfriendly, arrogant one may say.


"If you don't serve me OU on a silver plate then fck off" and then, each time when some of you were more or less able to proof that someone was wrong and there is no OU in his device, you yell HORRAY, NO OU!!! and open a bottle of champagne. Of course, if somebody would actually present undebunkable proof for OU, your little world would collapse entirely.


What exactly was the reason why Witts demonstration of self looping his ecklinish generator was, as you, TK, said "obscure" (if I recall correctly)?


Mayejestic, ignore them. You may use the ignore list, over profile settings.


Keep us updated, cheers dude.

As I mentioned in my post, Stefan is also questioning this one.
What do you have to say to him ? Does he get a "fck off" too.

There are red flags all over this one, but hey, let us ignore those and go visit his website.
http://www.freeenergyparty.org/

Oooh look, a paypal button.

Let us press it and see if we can get 3500% or 200% of our money back.
Doesn't matter which, does it ?


I have no problem with inventors coming here presenting "their own" ideas or looking for input,
but when their first post directs to a web site seeking money, then in an open forum like this one, I am going to post whatever question I like, in whatever tone I like.

Live with it.



As to the when and if above, have either happened yet ?
The "when"s always and the "ifs" never (not yet at least, and it will take more than a shaky youtube video for that to happen.)
TK has offered testing help (as has ramset), but TK gets the "fck off" treatment because he asked a question.
How arrogant of him to question someone seeking money.

[TinselKoala]

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?

[Cap-Z-ro]

THIS IS AN INSULT TO THE AMBASSADOR !!!

Are the members here not smart enough to know a scam when they see one ?

Sure they are...because they ask for schematics and try to 'see for themselves'...so, there's virtually Zero (pun indicated) chance we can be scammed into blowing our inheritance on Mylo's mistake.

I enjoy the exploration process which starts whenever something new comes along...again?

But, seeing the presenter attacked almost immediately interrupts the process every time, and is something i don't believe any of us enjoy seeing...so why are we being subjected to it, is the elephant in the room a few here have commented on.

A little peace and quiet would be so nice.

Regards...

[MarkE]

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?

The needed swervel bearings are on back order.

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?

They need more light bulbs.

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?

Big oil controls the supply of real power analyzers.  Ignore the man behind the phasor.

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?

They must be a brilliant developer of blue algae.

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?

Hope you will donate girl has a competitor.

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?

They need to contact Sterling Allan!