I've posted here before about my generator design, and even posted a link to my blog about converting a dead alternator into a high torque, high RPM, 3 phase motor.

I've tried getting people not affiliated with big oil or government out here to test my systems, but it was nothing but a run around. Their more closed minded than the skeptics, and condemn EVERYTHING without so much as looking. Namely Mark Dansie and his people.

NOW I'm seeking audience from oil companies, the military, the government, and anyone else wanting the systems for PROFIT. I know most of them don't post here and just watch, so here's my personal email address.

AND I DON'T WANT UNEDUCATED DUMMIES GIVING ME WARNINGS ABOUT HOW DANGEROUS POSTING MY EMAIL IS! KEEP YOUR NOSE ON YOUR OWN FACE!

babygirl8181980@gmail.com

C'mon man...  Defense contractors like L******* and R******* et all have had these systems for 20+ years, probably more like 50 years.  At this point , I'm sure their technology is highly evolved nth generation full life cycle units, in full production for black budget.

No personal offense here, but Why would they care about converting a dead alternator to a high torque high RPM 3phase motor?    You are better off open-sourcing it if it's legit;  no one makes money off free energy.

As bolt says, and I agree, the days of the 80s and 90s are over.  No investor funds this stuff.  You want to create it, you have to fund it off your own spare change or with assistance of family and friends.  That's just the sad reality of the world we live in.

Can't agree more. The goal get our studies in the mainstream of science so that funding which now goes for sheer crap to be funneled into avenues such as OU which will benefit humanity. This is an idealistic (no profit involved), purely scientific pursuit which should be conducted as openly as possible.

Isn't there a moderator to curb the troll @MrMag. Incompetent people such as @MrMag should not set the tone of this forum and should not be allowed to destroy the discussions.

Isn't there a moderator to curb the troll @MrMag. Incompetent people such as @MrMag should not set the tone of this forum and should not be allowed to destroy the discussions.

Just because I disagree with your comment you call me a troll. Why would my comment make me incompetent? I think my comment is a little more realistic then your babble. Sticks and stones.

Sorry for this post Babygirl, but this guy who tries to come across as a scientist is always commenting that I am a troll. He's just an arrogant ass, I would ignore him.

haha same goes for you !

Funding isn't going to help you guy's you need something else.

If my comment was incoherent to you, you have a problem.

You are incompetent and you should curb your comments because nonsense such as yours only clogs the discussions and disrupts them.

Do you know how many patents there are on free energy devices the last 100 years most of which have expired? ... Thousands and thousands. Quite a few may have worked but never got funding. The best ones of course are locked up under national security.

1970's - 90's expensive magnet/pulsed motors producing OU and or looped are two for a penny. Ask Joe Newman, EVgray etc they tried hard enough even got scientific people to prove it.  Most generators will cost to crank out 5kw -10kw at least $50-100k to build with special machine parts in today's market. No one gave a crap then despite hundreds of public viewings all over the US and elsewhere and no one gives a crap now.  Back then quite a lot of projects DID get massive funding $100 mio there $50 mio there but most of it wasted and nothing to show for it. Not for the technology but due to intense greed they all spent like it was lotto cash.

You need a solid state device cheap using off the shelf parts otherwise don't bother. Then you need to open source it and make it widely available till the hundred monkey syndrome kicks in. Ismael is the latest with his electric car COP 2.7 out of his MEG and DOE certified for 134% on the dyno for transmission but i see no sign of any one putting in bids in unless they want to take full control of the technology and suppress it.

So you open source it like Linux. Everyone benefits and improves the technology. You get contracts to make specials for people that need something unique or don't have the time, skills to make it but have money and can SEE it actually works as others are using it. You starts small make one sell it. Buy parts for 2 make them sell em make 4 etc within a few weeks you got so much work and so much money you can never cope in a lifetime.

Problem is, none of these devices you mention above actually work as OU. Most of these are only used as ways to milk gullible investors. The OU field is overwhelmed with such bogus claims, including the latest ones. That's the tragedy and that stands in the way of the real progress and puts a bad name on the entire field. OU is a scientific issue, not an issue of engineering and marketing. There are certain ways of proving the reality of a scientific claim that have been established for centuries and these are legitimate and good, proper ways. Unfortunately, many of those interested in OU ignore them and the use of little terms such as 'open source' or 'COP' immediately gives away that they are not serious researchers but are after goals which lie outside of science. I've said it more than once and I'll repeat it now, there's no private money, no matter how much of it, which can compete with the money and infrastructure of Academia. Unless we (those interested in promoting OU as a legitimate area of study) find ways to make breakthrough into Academia and legitimize OU as mainstream, all these efforts we're applying are doomed. To do that, first we should be very clear what's legitimate, real OU and what are just games and finagling let alone sheer aggressive incompetence. I'm afraid overwhelmingly the OU claims fall in the latter category be it because, as I already said, of lack of competence or due to outright dishonesty (there's enough dishonesty in the mainstream, to add more to it from the outside). Then, once clear cut OU effects are established Academia has to be made to listen. How is this to be achieved is a very difficult question. Academia is more than reluctant to listen to OU claims. It is repulsive and abhorrent to those in Academia to even hear the mentioning of OU but that's because they are conditioned and systematically brainwashed to think so. I myself, being a classically educated scientist, thought so some years ago and used to brush off outright any mention of CoE violation and the like so I know the feeling. That has to change but it cannot change through behavior displayed by some well known claimants (who themselves are obviously unsure of their own claims or not qualified enough to defend them and that's the underlying reason to deny scrutiny; aside from bogus dreams of riches that will never come true).