Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[bistander]

Proof again

Prove to who?

I thought I covered that. The person making the claim is expected to offer proof or credible evidence in support of his claim to whom the claim was directed. At first I thought he was directing it towards me. Then maybe the world because this is an open forum and can be read by anyone. But then from what he subsequently posted, I think he was directing his comments to Ufopolitics. And then there is citfta.

Whats the value of you believing or not? Can you help? Will you sacrifice? Will you replicate to help prove? Will you finance?

Value of me believing? More than you can imagine.
Value of me not believing? Zero.
Sacrifice? Maybe.
Replicate? Most certainly once I'm convinced of value in doing so.
Finance? I'm limited in the $ regard, but I certainly could support my own build with material, equipment and needed cash which I have on hand.

... and what constitutes proof? Do you want video?

A scientific paper would be nice, but I don't expect that. So yes, a clear video of what I've outlined would be nice. Or drawings, schematics, photos and test data would be good for starters.

What? What the f**k are you going to do to support the proof?

I need to see it before I can answer. What support do you think the proof needs?

F**kin dumba$$ like we can post a video and expect people like you to jump out of the seat and offer help...

If I see proof or convincing evidence that support your claims of an OU motor-generator, I will help.

We hand it all out and you, you f**cking coward won't build it for yourself. F**k You.

You never know. Are you brave enough to find out?

David you should leave these people alone they are f**king cowards, McDonald workers trying to buy a Cadillac, a bunch of Broke ass no nothing bit**es.

Matt

Been a nice conversation,

bi

[Matthew Jones]

Hi Turion,

Excellent example. Everything associated with Leedskalnin's PMH can be explained by magnetic retentivity and coercivity of a soft (magnetic) ferromagnetic material. It is the same phenomenon as you see with permanent magnets except those are made with hard (magnetic) material.

I don't want to get into an argument or attempt to teach physics on the web, but:

You can find the Laws you reference stated in many various ways on the web. And no doubt find various definitions for the terms used. So this is my take:

The system is the motor and generator combination. Consider it in a box. Only 3 places to pass thru the box.

1.) Input, 240 watts, electrical.

2.) Output, 1800 watts, electrical.

3.) Output loss, 10 watts (estimated), heat.

Nothing else passes through the box. There is no energy storage or source (like a battery) inside the box. The rotating members of the machines will have kinetic energy but if the speed is uncanged, that energy is constant and does not pass in or out of the box.

Unity is defined as Input = Output. All machines, so far, operate less than Unity. The Efficiency is defined as Output Power / Input Power * 100%. This can be calculated as Efficiency = (Input Power - Loss) / (Input Power) * 100%. So for your motor-generator, Efficiency = (240 watts - 10 watts) / 240watts * 100% = 95.83% efficient, or in other words, 230 watts output.

Now you claim with that Input Power (240 watts) you get 1800 watts Output Power. That calculated to 745.8% Efficient.

Conventional wisdom says anything over 100% efficient is not possible. That is what makes your claim incredible.

Just like last year when I attempted to help you understand why those members on that other forum would not take you seriously, when you make fantastic claims, you're expected to back it up with proof or credible evidence. When you refuse to do so, and say you proved it to yourself, and your friend, and you convinced another guy, people don't take you seriously. You reasons are irrelevant.

Just like Leedskalnin's PMH, I don't think you know what you have. You believe it's OU, but I suspect you're mistaken.

I hope you prove me wrong. Please do.

bi

Prove to who? Whats the value of you believing or not? Can you help? Will you sacrifice? Will you replicate to help prove? Will you finance? Just say you'll be able to do one thing..Commit yourself to the responsibility your asking someone to put out there. What are you going to do if we show proof, and what constitutes proof? Do you want video? Do you want a all paid vacation to our location so you can analyze in your expertise...What? What the f**k are you going to do to support the proof?

F**kin dumba$$ like we can post a video and expect people like you to jump out of the seat and offer help...We hand it all out and you, you f**cking coward won't build it for yourself. F**k You.

David you should leave these people alone they are f**king cowards, McDonald workers trying to buy a Cadillac, a bunch of Broke ass no nothing bit**es.

Matt

[dragon]

Maybe a different perspective... If you have a 1:1 transformer that is 95% efficient and your input is 100 watts, the output of 95 watts is charging a battery. Take the 95 watt output add the 5 watt loss and run it back through. Essentially running the 100 watt load with 5 watts. Not quite unity and certainly not overunity.

[bistander]

Prove me wrong, please

... The thread I started on "Leedskalnin's PMH" shows that within a system that is as isolated as any system you will FIND, you can still create energy if you know what you are doing.
...

Hi Turion,

Excellent example. Everything associated with Leedskalnin's PMH can be explained by magnetic retentivity and coercivity of a soft (magnetic) ferromagnetic material. It is the same phenomenon as you see with permanent magnets except those are made with hard (magnetic) material.

I don't want to get into an argument or attempt to teach physics on the web, but:

You can find the Laws you reference stated in many various ways on the web. And no doubt find various definitions for the terms used. So this is my take:

The system is the motor and generator combination. Consider it in a box. Only 3 places to pass thru the box.

1.) Input, 240 watts, electrical.

2.) Output, 1800 watts, electrical.

3.) Output loss, 10 watts (estimated), heat.

Nothing else passes through the box. There is no energy storage or source (like a battery) inside the box. The rotating members of the machines will have kinetic energy but if the speed is uncanged, that energy is constant and does not pass in or out of the box.

Unity is defined as Input = Output. All machines, so far, operate less than Unity. The Efficiency is defined as Output Power / Input Power * 100%. This can be calculated as Efficiency = (Input Power - Loss) / (Input Power) * 100%. So for your motor-generator, Efficiency = (240 watts - 10 watts) / 240watts * 100% = 95.83% efficient, or in other words, 230 watts output.

Now you claim with that Input Power (240 watts) you get 1800 watts Output Power. That calculated to 745.8% Efficient.

Conventional wisdom says anything over 100% efficient is not possible. That is what makes your claim incredible.

Just like last year when I attempted to help you understand why those members on that other forum would not take you seriously, when you make fantastic claims, you're expected to back it up with proof or credible evidence. When you refuse to do so, and say you proved it to yourself, and your friend, and you convinced another guy, people don't take you seriously. Your reasons are irrelevant.

Just like Leedskalnin's PMH, I don't think you know what you have. You believe it's OU, but I suspect you're mistaken.

I hope you prove me wrong. Please do.

bi

[Matthew Jones]

I do not believe electricity whatever it is, should be equated to mass, or the physics of mass should not be applicable. Electricity is not Mass. Calling it energy allows for this to happen.
Magnetic Photons are a Bi Product of electricity and therefore they allow electricity to reproduce itself. Electricity can be captured and reused.

The only laws that are broken in the course of a COP over 1 electrical device are man made laws. Henry A Lorentz, 1906, The symmetrical regauging of the heavy side component.
The rule states all circuits must begin and end with zero. That means in the path of the electricities potential it must be grounded. This primarily done because then the math could be done in simple algebraic equations. You never wind up with extra energy in what they later they called a closed system.

This though does not mean that energy is not converted to entropic means in the course of traveling through circuit. Generally a lot of heat is produced and this is a direct conversion and loss of electrical potential. The heat generated and the potential or voltage lost from this is in no way significant to the output to ground. Well at least if you know what your doing.

Modern electrical engineering believes and is told the "LOAD" consumes the electricity. When often the load is just a small voltage drop. This stems from the rules of Lorentz. There is no accounting for the drop in voltage since the electricity has altered and is now useless and must go to ground, or zero out. Voltage drops are only acceptable when switching or sensors are present before the load. Then the voltage drop becomes accountable.

Often loads are switched and in the process create large voltage drops, This does not mean the energy is lost or even converted but must be averaged out with zero over time as switching turns the potential on and off. These are the only significant losses of electricity. Averaging laws are only mathematic in nature and are the only laws that apply both to electricity and mass at the same time.

Physical laws do not apply to electricity unless man made laws are adhered to. The problem people who claim otherwise is a pure lack of practical education. Listen to Eric Dollard, "Physicist hate Electricity". That says it all. Because we burn to make electricity as a consumable, we cannot really have a real discussion about what it is and how its capable. Period....

We can look into space and see Dark Matter at work but we cannot attempt to harness any energy that replicates its properties, we can only gaze and wonder.

There is no need to have the discussion there is only a need to propose more questions. That should be the goal. IHMO

Matt

[med.3012]

Hello everyone,

i think the idea is much simple using the law of conservation and the notion open or closed system , using the same law free energy is possible ! we have two situation ,

1- a closed system where the energetic interaction remain in a closed well defined shape , by the same law the energy is conservative so we have what we put in or less in case of losses ( radiation, heat ...etc .. )


2- an open system where the energetic interaction isn't defined by a known shape , using the same law it's normal to have an excess of power beyond what we put in ... over unity is possible since we are able to receive energy , an example of the two possibility , positive or negative resistance .


regards

[ricards]

Hello turion,

The laws of physics are not built on wooden sticks.. they do apply. Making a mockery of it doesn't make it wrong..

If you have a system that works and continously generates power doesn't mean you're creating energy.. you're just doing more work.. which you can quantify as "energy out"..
Conceptually speaking OU is possible.. example?.. let us not look further.. living things.. if you could quantify the amount of work you can do to the amount of energy you take from your food it will not add up.. and resting or sleeping is not considered energy in.. our system has ways to reflenish its own energy by itself.. but will not sustain itself without energy input.. (food). And that is why technically speaking OU is not possible..
So conservation of energy still applies.. energy was not created nor destroyed. It's only that we have different perception of the word "ENERGY"..

I could say the isolated system is the universal system and the supposed energy you claim to have generated isn't really from the machine itself.. and you could say otherwise.. lets not do that..
If you wanted a discussion perhaps you could atleast start by explaining what really is "Energy".. a thing?.. or just a quantifiable concept of motion and potentials..
And perhaps lead to a conclusion why free energy really is possible..

[bistander]

Turion's generator

Turion,

You made a specific claim publicly. Sorry. I thought it meant you were willing to provide proof publicly. Apparently not. I see no reason to rehash your reasons again. I'll be watching for the proof when your ready to provide it.

Good luck and regards,

bi

[wantomake]

I will add this much. I have seen first hand on a small scale what Matt and Dave are saying is true. I KNOW how to eliminate the cogging based on what I have learned from Dave. I have used that method on a small machine and it works. I have seen the 3BGS work just as advertised. I have rewound a motor following Matt's instructions and seen what it adds to the system. I have NOT seen Dave's larger machine working but I am confident it does what he says it does because of what I have seen on a smaller scale. They have shared much more real info about a system that actually works than anyone I know. I have seen many many claims of OU or free energy on the forums but I haven't seen any proof that any of the others work and I have built a lot of them. This system does what Matt and Dave say it does.

As far as I know only a couple of other people have invested the time and money and effort into getting a system working. Wantomake is one of the few that has actually done the work and seen the results Dave and Matt told him he would see.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Thanks Carroll,
I've been too busy building the upright Dave type generator to post here. Got it torn down to redesign per the inventor design. Dave and Matthew have been great in helping me. Dave has pushed me past each level to gain understanding of the next higher level that must be built or known before more information is given. Watching a system or machine produce results before one's eyes is well worth the time and resources.

wantomake

[citfta]

I will add this much. I have seen first hand on a small scale what Matt and Dave are saying is true. I KNOW how to eliminate the cogging based on what I have learned from Dave. I have used that method on a small machine and it works. I have seen the 3BGS work just as advertised. I have rewound a motor following Matt's instructions and seen what it adds to the system. I have NOT seen Dave's larger machine working but I am confident it does what he says it does because of what I have seen on a smaller scale. They have shared much more real info about a system that actually works than anyone I know. I have seen many many claims of OU or free energy on the forums but I haven't seen any proof that any of the others work and I have built a lot of them. This system does what Matt and Dave say it does.

As far as I know only a couple of other people have invested the time and money and effort into getting a system working. Wantomake is one of the few that has actually done the work and seen the results Dave and Matt told him he would see.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Matthew Jones]

Hello Matt,

The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.

My importance? Not for me to say. I did not notice importance as a prerequisite to forum participation. I do try to bring some scientific order to this chaos. To those ends, here's an authority on the subject:



From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Regards,

bi

Thats what I said, You can lead horse to water, but you can't make them drink.
No desire to work, no money to invest, no need for you to see any proof. I'll hang on till I can make difference. Any other way puts everything at risk.

Matt

[bistander]

Burden of proof

NO, prove it to your self and build one. Davids nearly given all of it away its only the fact no one chooses to finish anything to a certain point that it all hasn't been given away yet. And I am the one who dictates that. You get to a point where it all looks a little uncertain and I'll clear things up for you.

Whats wrong, are you broke, Like ME. Are you incapable, IE crippled or beat up from working to hard, Welcomer to the club.

Its funny how some of us work on our projects, and other cry "Prove it".

Here's a better offer, give me $10k and within the year I'll make you richer than you ever could be otherwise. You'll see the proof up front, but you'll never do that either, Bigger men than you have walked away with one excuse or another.

So in my mind I only wonder why you need proof, your not participating, your not looking for anything other than something to read and you will not invest. Explain to us your importance?

Matt

Hello Matt,

The one making the claim bears the burden of proof.

My importance? Not for me to say. I did not notice importance as a prerequisite to forum participation. I do try to bring some scientific order to this chaos. To those ends, here's an authority on the subject:

In scientific research evidence is accumulated through observations of phenomena that occur in the natural world, or which are created as experiments in a laboratory or other controlled conditions. Scientific evidence usually goes towards supporting or rejecting a hypothesis.

The burden of proof is on the person making a contentious claim.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Regards,

bi

[Matthew Jones]

Please show us proof of this simple claim:

Input power = 240 watts

Output power = 1800 watts

Simultaneously measured, real power, DC amps * DC volts or AC watts.

Been waiting a long time to see this.

Thanks,

bi

NO, prove it to your self and build one. Davids nearly given all of it away its only the fact no one chooses to finish anything to a certain point that it all hasn't been given away yet. And I am the one who dictates that. You get to a point where it all looks a little uncertain and I'll clear things up for you.

Whats wrong, are you broke, Like ME. Are you incapable, IE crippled or beat up from working to hard, Welcomer to the club.

Its funny how some of us work on our projects, and other cry "Prove it".

Here's a better offer, give me $10k and within the year I'll make you richer than you ever could be otherwise. You'll see the proof up front, but you'll never do that either, Bigger men than you have walked away with one excuse or another.

So in my mind I only wonder why you need proof, your not participating, your not looking for anything other than something to read and you will not invest. Explain to us your importance?

Matt

[bistander]

Context

...
I NEVER WROTE THAT!!, anyone could re-read my original post and see if they find such BS.

I know very well Electric Machines does not "fart"...HOWEVER, NO ELECTRIC GENERATOR WOULD WORK WITHOUT A STINKING FARTING MACHINE.
...

Then why did you bring it up in a thread where the discussion was all about magnetism and electric machinery and the science and technology associated with electric machinery and magnetism? That was the context.

And you're wrong. Many electric generators work without a stinking farting machine. And the number of those clean powered electric generators increases every day.

bi

[bistander]

Proof please

Just want to point out that my generator puts out between 1800-2000 watts while running on a STOCK electric motor that requires 240 watts input. ...

Please show us proof of this simple claim:

Input power = 240 watts

Output power = 1800 watts

Simultaneously measured, real power, DC amps * DC volts or AC watts.

Been waiting a long time to see this.

Thanks,

bi