Newman machine confirmed as overunity?

[yandros]

Wait so this is confirmed overunity!?

What frequency are the bursts at? Could you just use a wave guide to keep them running in circles so you get multiple passes on your coils?

[RunningBare]

Wait so this is confirmed overunity!?

What frequency are the bursts at? Could you just use a wave guide to keep them running in circles so you get multiple passes on your coils?

Since it's operation depends on a very noisy commutator, it will be multiple frequencies with multiple harmonics, trust me, if you put this thing near a television or radio you will probably be able to detect as a form of intereference.

Stefan, I would be interrested in a link to the confirmed OU if you have one please?

[RunningBare]

Sheesh, it got quiet around here, is it because I requested a link to confirm OU from the Newman motor?

[H2earth]

Stephan,

Converting the RF will now be the easy part.  Run it through a Meyer Water Fuel Cell.  We now know that the Voltage Intensifier Circuit and Resonant Charging Chokes on the WFC are interacting in the same way as the coils on the Bearden MEG, and that, in effect, the WFC coils are switching in exactly the same way as those in the Newman machine.

Look at pages 25-36 of the D3 document on PGFED (www.panaceauniversity.org).  That Tesla Switch is the key to all of these devices; they all do it in one way or another.   To get the WFC, use coils and "just add water".   The switch operates identically to the Newman Commutator.   The switch by itself will recharge batteries at 12v; if you add coils and magnets (like Newman) you get high power RF which fries batteries and blows caps.  So dont.   Use that amplified output to make Hydroxy instead, running it through the WFC.

The Newman Output waveform is identical to the Meyer Input waveform.  Now we know why.   Just take that excess energy as fuel gas and all those HV/HF power conversion issues go away.   

[yandros]

H2earth,

I read a few pages of http://www.panaceauniversity.org/D3.pdf starting at 25 as you said.

I am no electronics wizz, but if you are working with traditional electrical theory then I am quite positive this explanation is wrong.

The hypothesis stated in that part of the paper is that the ions in the battery take 'longer to get moving' and thus an uncontrolled build up of electrons occurs on the positive terminal (cathode) of the battery.

My qualm with this is simple: If electrons feel that it is nessessary to flow down that wire to that terminal to begin with then the charge on that terminal must already be lower. (There must already be a voltage potential present between the switch and the terminal.) 

So how can the author claim that the ions haven't started moving yet if the ions are responsible for creating the potential which starts the electron migration in the first place?

In addition: your electron source is also from the same battery and therefore from the same chemical reaction. So the electrons are being supplied only as fast as they can be consumed.

If anything: shorting the battery directly like this would cause a drop in current as the ions struggled to carry out the chemical reaction fast enough. But a change in voltage would most likely not be present.

If the proposed increase in voltage were to occur: unsolicited chemical reactions might take place inside the battery and end up damaging it or causing it to explode.

If you think my analysis is wrong please point me in the right direction.