Author Topic: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent (Read 27045 times)

Liberty · « **Reply #15 on:** October 10, 2006, 03:54:41 AM »

I wonder if permanent magnet high density flux saturation levels of the core, interferes with the more powerful operation of the Gunderson Solid State Electric Generator? (It is my understanding that it so far works at low power levels). I would guess that core saturation might be a limiting issue in attempted higher magnetic strength and power models because of the limit of saturation in a magnetic core. I hope not, but as I think about it, I would wonder about that being an unfortunate limitation of the design??? Maybe Overtone would be able to speak about this, whether it is an issue, and if not, how it can be avoided? Perhaps the core material that is used is key here or just make the core very large and laminate the core using silicon steel?

Overtone · « **Reply #16 on:** October 10, 2006, 06:11:07 AM »

Sorry, as I have mentioned, I cannot comment on proprietary technology issues.

All will be revealed when the final Patent documents covering this invention are published.

JackFrost · « **Reply #17 on:** October 17, 2006, 08:09:18 PM »

Hello Mark,

How is the validation coming along?

JackFrost

Overtone · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2006, 02:49:57 AM »

Hi Jack,

We have two devices that may prove out in the rotary lab and two in the solid-state lab, with the possibility of one more in each.

Progress is slower than we would like, but continues. Part of what slows us down is the continuing shortage of working capital, ironically, that will end with validation.

There is also some wonderful and important new work, which interferes with attempts to schedule, as it represents insights that can help with several of the future commercial and demo machines. Invention does not lend itself to a rigid schedule.

Finally, EarthTech has relocated in Austin and coordinating visits may prove a bit of a challenge.

My present guess is we will end up with it all done sometime next month.

JackFrost · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2006, 09:08:42 PM »

Mark,

If evaluation will cure the working capital issue then I suggest focusing on the single device that can be produced most expediently and with the greatest chance of initial success rather than several devices. You risk having multiple incomplete devices, no evaluations, and no capital. The longer it takes - the more it take - monitarily that is.

You stated before that you have a working prototype (when the patent application was filed) - take it to Austin. Like LTSeung888 mentioned - Steorn forced their hand and they have to move much faster than anticipated - you do too.

Also, send this link to Cyril:
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/demoweb/demomanual/electricity_and_magnetism/electrodynamics/vector_potential.html

If the deflection of the galvanometer isn't A-Field induction, then what is it?

Overtone · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2007, 10:08:26 PM »

Jack,

We have a sharp focus on OU devices that we expect will soon be independently validated.

Attached is a Press Release you and other readers might find of interest.

Mark

MeggerMan · « **Reply #21 on:** February 04, 2007, 12:34:10 AM »

Hi Mark,
What strikes me about your mystery device is that I have never come across any photographs of your device except the 3 small images found on peswiki.

Are there any photos of your device apart from what is on peswiki?

Regards
Rob

Overtone · « **Reply #22 on:** February 04, 2007, 01:22:52 AM »

No.

The photos are of a different device in an early experiment. Patentable versions are not shown.

No photos of our generators will be released until more patents have been filed, not only in the USA, but in several other countries, including Taiwan and South Korea.

In those countries, release of a photo can immediately end patentability.

Mark

Grumpy · « **Reply #23 on:** February 04, 2007, 04:29:39 AM »

Overtone,

Where have you been, Mark? Been quiet without you. Hmm, who's "RTS"?

You might take a look at this link which shows some fine renderings of a device that appears similar to the MPI/Gunderson device:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=98821b619bdb6a8515e3314d84a51183&topic=1827.0

Guess the image and description in the patent was enough for someone to take a crack at it. Sure would be a pisser if someone brought out your device before your validation.

How's the validation coming along? Been about 6 months now, still a month out?

Sorry, I'm being facetious.

Pass this on to Cyril Smith:

"There are no fields, only the potentials."

MeggerMan · « **Reply #24 on:** February 04, 2007, 07:39:06 PM »

Hi Mark,
So I take it that you are not going to help on this forum in any way, no pointers, no hints, no clues, no nothing really except pointing out how much publicity your company MPI is getting.

What would happen if a copy-cat device was released to the public before yours?

Can I ask how much overunity are you getting with your latest device?
Is it self running?

Regards
Rob

Overtone · « **Reply #25 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:11:43 AM »

We do not yet have a self-running device, but all of our commercialization efforts are based on achieving such units.

Our focus is getting generators and demonstration devices into production asap.

Everything else has to be much lower in priority.

There are too few of us and too much work to be done to spend much time on this or any other forum.

Three very large domestic firms have begun evaluating our work and are potential licensees.

Mark

Overtone · « **Reply #26 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:20:10 AM »

Grumpy,

RTS is our subsidiary, formed in 1993 to develop polymer Ultraconductors(tm).

If you read my posts, you will see that nobody is likely to succeed in making an Over Unity generator based on the present patent application. It is far more difficult and expensive to develop than is apparent.

We welcome all competitors. The world needs this type of technology urgently and we cheer anyone on who tries to develop it.

Cyril is well aware of the point of view reflected in the comment you made and has been for many years.

Best to all,

Mark

Mark

MeggerMan · « **Reply #27 on:** February 05, 2007, 12:06:44 PM »

Hi Mark,

Quote

We do not yet have a self-running device, but all of our commercialization efforts are based on achieving such units.

Ah, I thought you did have a self running unit.
Are you confident that it can be made self running?
If not then that puts into question a lot of other devices like the MEG.
So when you apply for a patent, you may show a device that shows over-unity only but does not need to be self-running?

Surely you would build at least one prototype self running unit before you commit to a production run.

Regards
Rob

acp · « **Reply #28 on:** February 05, 2007, 02:56:39 PM »

overtone, you really are a funny guy.................

Hoppy · « **Reply #29 on:** February 05, 2007, 04:47:13 PM »

Overtone wrote: -

Quote

"We do not yet have a self-running device, but all of our commercialization efforts are based on achieving such units."

How big were the batteries powering the TPU's shown in the video then?

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent (Read 27045 times)

Liberty

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Questions re Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent Application

JackFrost

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

JackFrost

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Re: Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

MeggerMan

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Grumpy

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

MeggerMan

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Overtone

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

MeggerMan

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

acp

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent

Hoppy

Re: Is this the same? Gundersons Solid State Electric Generator Patent