Ah... the Quanta charger. Yes, I remember that one pretty much as you do.
You are right about the "back-channel" communication network. Nobody but Stefan knows the depths of that web or who is talking to whom. I've got some doozies in my PM box from people trying to get me involved in one thing or another... Mister Wayne even asked about the possibility of hiring me, isn't that a laugh? And I have a few friends that I talk about this and that with in PMs too.

Back to the Quanta thing. Well, it's a case of effects interpreted in certain ways, tight control of real data, and perhaps a bit of exaggerated hyperbole to get the pot stirred up and cooking.  They are making and selling a nice little PWM controller unit, more power to them. But would they have reached their target customer base as easily, had they not shown something remarkable?

I have no real data, but I can speculate. There is one bit of real knowledge I can share with you, though: any motor that uses cylindrical coils with one pole pointing out into space is wasting half of the magnetic field of that coil. Perhaps that's important for the "effect"... but I will guarantee more torque, and stronger HV spikes, if both ends of the coil ( and both ends of any PMs) are put to work. The ideal setup for a pulse motor/generator with PMs in the rotor would be to have your coils wound on "toroids with a gap" and have your rotor turning thru the gap. This would put both poles of the electromagnets pushing or pulling or engaging in core effect, working with/against both poles of each rotor magnet: optimal use of the magnetic field for no extra cost in current (essentially doubling the field for the same current), no waste.
It is very rare to see pulse motor aficionadoes using all the magnetic circuit. But real commercial motor designers always do: They even include mu-metal shells on simple DC can motors to close the magnetic circuit from the stator magnets that would otherwise be wasted outside the can.

Anyhow... if anyone has a Quanta setup that they would like to test, let me know and we can work out a procedure. Beyond that, my impression of how the Quanta system works is pretty  much contained in what I saw when I clicked thru to watch the video:
(Sorry... it is actually pretty hard for me to take this seriously, when stuff like this comes up. I must be the last person on the planet who does not allow ads or make money from my YT videos. Maybe I should start.)

How about this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgvFHejoQEk

Thanks.  The problem for me is that my own past pursuits only involve one or two concepts and there are so many concepts out there that it is daunting to even try to become educated on one, let alone all of them.

What that means simply is that I only have one qualification that is written in crayon.... does the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself (on the whole at least).

You can imagine for someone that a machine is presented and the math-minded begin to present problems with the equation, and I'm sitting here thinking ..."math?".  Is it self running or is it not?

While I am not beyond examining the physics math behind any device, every time I begin do so, my brain begins to question why I'm doing math at all when I'm looking at what appears to be a self running machine?

Now in the example of the last link I provided... "quanta" was it?...  The device appears to be self running, accelerating, and producing an increasing voltage output.  In fact, I don't even care if it produces a voltage output (much), I am only interested in the fact that it appears to be under self power.

The best way I can describe it is that I feel "stunned" by what I am witnessing, while at the same time watching the other responses such as "Nice work!... have you considered using a different factor in your cap's?".   Um... who cares?

To me there is no point in discussing a fake machine, and if the machine is real...well...we'll figure out why it works, who's concept it is modeled after, and how to improve upon it... later, or let NASA figure it out.

In the example in that thread, I only care if the energy that is producing motion is coming from an outside hidden source (ie...a fake), or if somehow the energy was stored (and enough of it) in those cap's to explain it running for the length of time that it did (ie...a mistake), or if it is actually a closed loop device producing more power than it took to begin the process.
If the later is true, I'd rather spend my time figuring out if I could get on a plane to see it and help verify it than all the other commentary I witness.  If you read through that thread, you will observe the commentary I'm speaking of.

Instead, if feels like we missed the window.  The group just yacked about it and possibly there were some offline channels, and it's gone....err..faded away.

Even if the machine is a fake, I'd like to see a consensus and some evidence that it is a fake.  That device was possibly a good candidate for pro-active verification.

It leaves my mind very unsettled.  I mean... it's pinned on this board why and to what end?

Very insightful audiomaker. For what it's worth, I agree with most if not all of your observations - not necessarily in relation to that specific device but in general.

May I just point out what seems an unnecessary specification for meeting OU? You stated

does the device continuously produce energy in either motion or electricity without that motion or electricity coming from outside the loop of the machine itself

.... and I point here to the use of the word 'continuously'. Since the universe is asymmetric (Lee & Yang, 1956 or if you prefer a more tangible asymmetry, energy and matter) would it not be reasonable to expect that a device capable of encouraging motion (energy) in matter capitalising on this bias might be cyclic in nature? No doubt fusion stands as the prime example of a continuous release of, shall we say 'pressure' for want of a better term, into our material realm. But since such a method carries with it the risk of a sudden and catastrophic event due to failure of the flow control system we might prefer to realise our energy needs by use of some cyclic device which by it's very nature can be kept under firm control.

The Paradox Engine is cyclic btw - and apparently therefore does not pass even your first level of scrutiny?

   

TK, you said

First, never NEVER take your working prototype apart for any reason whatsoever.
Second, once you have a working prototype that you think is capable of making free energy or consistent OU performance, _immediately_ construct another identical one, make sure it works, and lock it away somewhere.
Then make a _third_ one and send it to me. If it still works when it gets to me and I take it out of the box, I'll refund your shipping costs.

What if

1. the prototype is a proof of concept device not capable of generating any output energy
2. the inventor has used up all their available resources building the prototype

Your advice is good provided the inventor has sufficient funds to produce a fully functional device then two more identical units. I would struggle just to meet the cost of postage, but clearly have no interest in profiting from my work or receiving cash bonuses from Youtube advertising. Does this not suggest something to be taken seriously?     

There are plenty of people... like me.... who are able and willing to run complete tests on many kinds of such apparatus and report them straightforwardly and honestly and who will do it for free.

Yet no reply to my earlier challenge.  Perhaps an easily verifiable OU phenomena and a potential new law of physics hold no real interest for you   

The solution to Tusk's problem is just as I have said earlier. When you have reliable repeatable data that indicates an anomaly, then you camp out in the graduate commons of a major research university, with a pitcher of beer and your device on the table. You demo and explain it to a bunch of physics grad students, every one of whom is casting about for a dissertation research project.
Or you put together your best dog-and-pony show, bring your smoke and your mirrors and show it to Bigelow, or Southwest Research Institute, or ETI. If you can interest them then you are off and running. If not.... then maybe your data and theory aren't really all that convincing to people who really are "skilled in the art".
Right now there's a case on this forum of someone who has "proof of concept" systems.... lots of them to hear the tale.... and is soliciting investment, applying for patents and promising huge returns.... he gave a PowerPoint presentation to a group of investors last year in which he projected that _if_ he got the investment funds he would, within 3 months, install a self-running system generating 50 kW of free electrical power for his local church. This is a person who claims to have working prototypes and has even published the usual videos, and has had a site visit from the Pope of Skeptics himself, the great Mark Dansie, whose stamp of approval is highly sought after and without which, apparently, no real Free Energy device can ever make it to production.
The fact that the investors were not conquered by the full brunt of this claimant's attack, along with the promise of the 50 kW unit at the church in three months... did not faze him at all, he still believes in himself and in his system, even though he has shown me, to my satisfaction, that he is all wet.
Why, if he had solid data and a real repeatable anomaly and a working prototype, would any investors NOT invest?  The answer can only be because he doesn't have what he promises, or at least can't show it consistently and unambiguously.

*sigh*

Perhaps you missed the graph showing clear potential OU of the main disk (not even considering the motion of the main rotor).

Or are you suggesting that a bench mounted disk driven by this method has losses other than EM and mechanical inefficiencies such that energy in does not correspond to the kinetic energy of the rotating disk?

One graph does not a data set make, especially when making extraordinary claims. I have not posted in your thread as I have no desire to discuss physics concepts with someone who does not understand physics. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

Do you have data to support this?

That is my opinion, not a claim requiring supporting evidence. If you want data in support of that opinion have a read here, it is fairly convincing:

http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/msg346668/#new

Under the circumstances I look forward to your continued lack of interest.

Agreed. Maybe now you will stop pushing your extraordinary claims, unsupported by relevant data, in alternative threads to your own.

@ evolvingape

Progress, in terms of new concepts, can occur as the product of an obscure line of investigation in a laboratory (such as various quantum phenomena) or as the result of an individual gaining an insight into the fundamental nature of a common circumstance which was previously not even given consideration (such as Newton with gravity).

In the interest of further understanding allow that up to this time no such knowledge of gravity has yet come to light, and poor old Sir Isaac (perhaps knighted for some other enterprise) pops in here to announce the inverse square law and a basic outline of his gravitational model. While no data has yet been collected, he explains that for a man of his age (370 give or take) and financial disposition (the knighthood doesn't come with an annuity) he thinks it best to pass on his findings post haste to a community with an interest in such matters.

Presumably this fantasy needs no conclusion; there are things that go unseen for many years, generations even, before someone looks in the right way. The fact that one person (or even a multitude) cannot see something is not sufficient evidence that it does not exist. The fact that only limited data is available, likewise.
     

It is also prudent to understand what a "claim" is:  http://inventors.about.com/od/definations/g/claim.htm

Useful link Liberty, for those interested in protecting their ideas under patent law.