STEORN DEMO LIVE & STREAM in Dublin, December 15th, 10 AM

[Omnibus]

It did not.

A self-sustaining run is the only proof of OU.

I have already proved OU conclusively in three different ways. Self-sustaining run is only an engineering development. It by no means is the only proof of OU. We are not going to destroy science and its method because of incompetent blabber such as the above.

[bolt]

I have already proved OU conclusively in three different ways. Self-sustaining run is only an engineering development. It by no means is the only proof of OU. We are not going to destroy science and its method because of incompetent blabber such as the above.

Well i said this before i say it again. When you make an OU device even if you think its only COP 1.1  that provides you with real gains there is no need to prove it to anyone else. Why? Because you are the one that is already benefiting from such gains so why bother trying to convince others?

Lets take Joule Thief and run 100 ultra bright LEDS which lights up your garage or shed using one AA battery or even run it from a small solar panel now you have practical use.

Use bedini fans to cool you in the summer or make Stifler SEC devices to charge batteries ultra fast on mA's.

What about RV motor conversion? Run a 3 phase 5 HP motor on 20 watts instead of  700 watts. Run your pool pump, heating pump, or AirCon pump in RV mode and save over 50% of your electric bill. Ainsley heater probably is OU then so what? No big deal replicating it for the sake of "science" and measuring 1mW in for 10mW out no one cares if it is or isn't so do something practical with it scale it up and actually make a water heater and save money.

Put HHO stuff on your car and save at least 10% even on a crap design it burns fuel better.

Start making REAL practical changes around you using this technology instead of arguing all day about COP and if Radiant Energy exist.

Even if you spend $100k on test gear and show an OU device in operation it doesn't change anything unless you put it to practical use. No one else is interested and no $100 million donations coming either. The "Museums" are full of OU special magnet motors and expensive toys that do nothing! Many working prototypes awaiting funding from investment angels.

Where is Tom Beardens MEG? I not seen it in Walmart yet same with 100 other devices. Don't hold your breath on steorn or other patented systems that are "almost" ready they are not coming..PERIOD!

[Pirate88179]

Bolt:

Your post sounds a lot like my responses to Youtube comments on my tube videos.  I am a practical guy and, even though "smart" folks tell me the JT circuit "can't do anything useful, I just used one of my early devices to light the way to my bathroom for my 82 year old mother for 10 hours/day for 1.5 months on a "dead" battery.  This used a single 10mm ultra bright led and, she never had a problem seeing her way in the dark.

(It is still going by the way)

So, I agree.  I don't care what something is supposed to do, or is designed to do, I just want to know what it can do and use it.

Great post.

Bill

[exnihiloest]

I have already proved OU conclusively in three different ways.
...

You did not. All conventional laws of physics, especially electromagnetics, implies momentum and energy conservation. If energy was not conserved, these laws would not be internally consistent. Therefore it is logically impossible to prove OU using the current laws of physics. You cannot use them against themself except for proving that they would be inconsistant; it would be known for a long time if it was the case.
If there is OU either these laws are false (nevertheless while being internally consistent) and you cannot use them to prove OU, or they are right and you have to discover the hidden energy source.   
The only exception to this rule would be the well known Maxwell demon, which contradicts only the second law of thermodynamics but not the energy conservation.

[Omnibus]

You did not. All conventional laws of physics, especially electromagnetics, implies momentum and energy conservation. If energy was not conserved, these laws would not be internally consistent. Therefore it is logically impossible to prove OU using the current laws of physics. You cannot use them against themself except for proving that they would be inconsistant; it would be known for a long time if it was the case.
If there is OU either these laws are false (nevertheless while being internally consistent) and you cannot use them to prove OU, or they are right and you have to discover the hidden energy source.   
The only exception to this rule would be the well known Maxwell demon, which contradicts only the second law of thermodynamics but not the energy conservation.

This is more of the same incompetent blabber you're filling the bandwidth of this forum with. The silly thing is you've heard that mantra and you're repeating it without any chance to prove what you're preaching. Why? Because you don't know what you're talking about. If you knew what you're talking about then you would've been able to prove that "If energy was not conserved, these laws would not be internally consistent." Why can't you prove that? Because it is simply not true. You have a feeling it is true but it isn't. You've heard somewhere someone say it's true but it isn't. Same as with the Einstein's "theory" of relativity -- a truly internally inconsistent theory and yet existing in the mainstream (one of the biggest mistakes science has done ever). You have absolutely no clue what that "theory" is but are arrogant enough to express opinions about it and about internal consistency. What nerve. As for energy, you don't get that energy has a deeper meaning than your limited way of understanding it and that under certain circumstances there is no need to have a pre-existing energy reservoir in order for energy to be produced. Let alone you don't understand that even the laws you mention are not a still entity but are prone to development and further understanding. You are not a scientist but are some kind of engineer at best and instead of taking care of your practical engineering duties you are laboriously expressing opinions on matters you don't understand thus clogging the discussions and disrupting them. That has to stop.