Questions regarding prize

[johnyb]

Stefan,

in another thread i had asked you for the current status on the OverUnity Prize application/s, but you did not respond. I was seeking confirmation directly from you rather than rely on an applicant's "i am an official applicant", but the item is still in the build stage, and/or hasn't been tested yet, and/or there is no documentation yet.

Where do you you draw the line regarding who wins the OverUnity Prize. How do you determine the winner when there are multiple applicants?  So far, one person claims to be an official applicant, and if i have not misunderstood so far, he is still in the development and testing stage.  So, can you confirm if he is an official applicant? If someone else delivers to you a working O.U. unit that meets the OU Prize conditions before the current applicant completes his model, then how do you determine who is to get the prize under such circumstances? The original applicant?  If yes to the original applicant, then what if they take a year to complete?

What order do you require. What takes precedence?


I am seeking clarification straight from the horses mouth. (figuratively speaking)


I would appreciate a response this time.

Thanks

[hartiberlin]

Well,
until now nobody has really applied for the prize
or those who tried had retracted, cause their devices did not work
or they wanted to patent them.

[Gustav22]

I think it's not enough money. 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello johnyb

I for one can answer this question.  We do have unequivocal proof of overunity.  But I have no interest in competing for a prize on this as it would slow down the development.  As I see it the ONLY prize would be to see the applications advanced.  And we only have proof of concept at a wattage that is painfully inadequate for sensible use.  Lots of work needed.

But the proof is there.  It's been developed to proof of concept - accredited by reputable laboratories - AND it's been replicated.  Finally it's been exhaustively reported in two papers.  And it's very much OPEN SOURCE.  Absolutely NO patent restrictions.

Hope that helps.  The subject is WAY too important to be delayed by extraneous proofs.  I'm not sure what Stefan's prize is - nor the conditions to getting that prize.  But a cash reward won't cut it.  It needs understanding of the effect and promotion to applications.  Then that would be prize enough.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

[mscoffman]

Hello johnyb

I for one can answer this question.  We do have unequivocal proof of overunity.  But I have no interest in competing for a prize on this as it would slow down
the development.  As I see it the ONLY prize would be to see the applications advanced.  And we only have proof of concept at a wattage that is painfully inadequate for sensible use.  Lots of work needed.

But the proof is there.  It's been developed to proof of concept - accredited by reputable laboratories - AND it's been replicated.  Finally it's been exhaustively reported in two papers.  And it's very much OPEN SOURCE.  Absolutely NO patent restrictions.

Hope that helps.  The subject is WAY too important to be delayed by extraneous proofs.  I'm not sure what Stefan's prize is - nor the conditions to getting that prize.  But a cash reward won't cut it.  It needs understanding of the effect and promotion to applications.  Then that would be prize enough.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/aetherevarising

@Rosemary;

I think you are making several traditional incorrect assumptions that have defeated
other folks in the past and hope you will not go entirely down that pathway.

The first incorrect assumption comes from the fact that no matter how miraculous
an invention might be it, will still need to be *sold* to the public before it gets
used and society gets benefits from it. (just ask JC.)

That selling involves both people unequivocally believing that it works the way
you say it does. That they will get a return on investment if they purchase it.
And if something goes wrong it can be repaired. And if they recommended it to
someone else that it or something like it will be will still be available for the future.

Just because something works doesn't mean that the experimenter knows
why/how it works, And this starts an opening for MIB'S (agents of anti-competitive
behavior), of which natural evolution is the final MIB, to create situations that
undermines the operation of your invention under normal circumstances.

So there is very much of a have-to-do “sequence of events” that must be
followed so that you know not only scientifically how it works but also knowing
what you know is correct because in the future *you will be tested on it*.

There is a legal principle called “merchantability and suitability for a particular
purpose” that enforces the correct sequence events so that you will not be held
liable to someone else’s false beliefs because you will be able to generally perform
everything that your purchasers have expected of the product in all revealable situations.

So Stehpan’s prize is not only about capital winnings, but about having someone
of his stature, both impartial and technically diligent in the overunity energy
“community” having done due diligence to prove that your invention;
Is *effectively* doing what you have said it will do. Making sure the device is
*effectively* replicable by the average technical person, if you say that it is.
(This is what government *patents* are supposed to do but *often* fall short
in the detail department.)

The value of that is near priceless and that is why If you think you can win the
overunity prize then I recommend you should do so. The U.S. Marines are looking
for a few good men, but we at overunity.com are generally looking for *one*
good OU device.

:S:MarkSCoffman