World's first real Free Energy Flashlight - no shaking - no batteries! No Solar

[txt]

Standard NiMH batteries do not contain any silicon wafers, antennas, coils, circuits, or other electronics that ADGEX tries to make us believe they contain to receive wirelessly the energy from the "resonator". So by opening the battery and finding the same content as in ordinary NiMH batteries, the manipulative maneuvering of ADGEX would be seriously limited.

Of course, I'd expect you doing it only in case ADGEX refuses the refund, or offers the refund without asking you to send back the flashlight.

[skywatcher]

Standard NiMH batteries do not contain any silicon wafers, antennas, coils, circuits, or other electronics that ADGEX tries to make us believe they contain to receive wirelessly the energy from the "resonator". So by opening the battery and finding the same content as in ordinary NiMH batteries, the manipulative maneuvering of ADGEX would be seriously limited.

I never expected the 'batteries' containing any circuitry of any kind, because this would make absolutely no sense in an open circuit.
The only possibility would have been an accumulator with some special chemistry, but this would look like any other accumulator.

But in general, reverse engineering only makes sense for a working device.

[txt]

I does not really matter what you expected. I always expected it was nothing else than a regular $2 torch with ordinary batteries. It also does not matter. The only thing that matters are the claims of the inventor, and if we can show the evidence proving them wrong, it will be easier to persecute them, and to have the suspected scam stopped by relevant authorities.

[skywatcher]

I does not really matter what you expected. I always expected it was nothing else than a regular $2 torch with ordinary batteries. It also does not matter. The only thing that matters are the claims of the inventor, and if we can show the evidence proving them wrong, it will be easier to persecute them, and to have the suspected scam stopped by relevant authorities.

The only relevant evidence is IF it works or not, and not WHY it works or not.

[txt]

The only relevant evidence is IF it works or not, and not WHY it works or not.

No, I permit myself to disagree. The evidence that it does not work, is not the evidence of the intent, of the fraud. It's just the evidence of the failure that may be accidental or can have construction or manufacturing reasons. If we find physical evidence in contradiction with the claims of ADGEX about the construction or functioning of the flashlight, there is a better chance to have the suspected scam stopped. If we cannot show any such evidence, the chances are slim.