View Single Post
Old 03-15-2019, 04:57 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,026
i acknowledge your acknowledgement

Originally Posted by bistander View Post
O.K. Aaron, the LED in the MIT produced light power of 233% times the electrical input power supplied to the LED. I can accept that result. I never said differently. I believe the power or energy difference between the measured output and electric input power came from the environment.

As far as an electric generator, I do not believe anyone had devised, as of yet, a method to tap that environment to gain energy to produce higher electric power than the mechanical power delivered on the shaft by the prime mover, aside from transients. It was such claims made by UfoPolitics showing up on search engine results which brought me to this forum in the first place. He was much talk and no proof, although he tried. With electric machinery, I know what I'm looking at. But you know what? That's why I'm here. I long to be proven wrong. That's how I learn. That's why I bug Turion. I don't want to belittle him or hurt him in any way. I want to help him. I'll gladly help him prove me wrong. I'd love to. But I can't if he doesn't show me the end results he claims.

So LEDs and semiconductor devices in conditions like the MIT experiment are outside my expertise. So are heat pumps although our home uses geothermal. I don't know much about those dissipative systems of money, or people, or biology that you mentioned. But I do know how electric motors and generators work. I thought I might be able to help in that regard.

Take it or leave it.


Thanks, I appreciate that you are able to admit the obvious.

Of course it came from the environment (artificial or not - still externally sourced).

But environmental input isn't always the only extra input in an overunity device or maybe it is. Some of this input may come from reactive elements within a system that do not appear to be externally sourced, but we're easily fooled.

There are many things in nature or in the man-made world where work is being performed, but there is a dominating fictitious belief that work is not being done according to conventional physics and mathematics when work clearly is being done.

It is claimed that gravity can do no work or that magnets can do no work, but elementary school math can show that they do.

In a few months, the ability to realize what this "hidden" work is will be more attainable by more people.

If you have an inductor with a permanent magnet at the core and that inductor was charged but is not switched off, as the magnetic field collapses, the magnetic field of the permanent magnet is partially pulled off of the magnet and that adds to the emf that causes a voltage spike. The active vacuum or aether instantly replenishes what the permanent magnet contributed so that is an example of how a magnet can contribute potential to do work. There are many other examples - this is just one.

I believe you believe mechanical work hasn't produced more electricity in a generator than it takes to move a prime mover and I'll leave it there for now. I have no argument about what you do not believe.

This is a simple analogy most people can relate to and understand. The foam is not necessarily wasted even though you pay the power company for reactive power - you don't get to use it.

But it is a great example - the foam is "phantom power" or "reactive power" and to convert it to real power that can do work, just wait a few minutes and let the element of TIME turn it into real power that you can actually drink.

You can pour that beer at a very low power factor by pouring it in to a very large mug to compensate for the volume of foam from 2 feet above the mug thereby creating maybe 95% foam or reactive power and 5% real power, but if you wait long enough, you will have 100% real power that will fill your stomach with not air, but real beer. What changed to make that possible?

Something to think about anyway.
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote