# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: phaedrus on May 11, 2014, 10:56:14 PM

Title: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: phaedrus on May 11, 2014, 10:56:14 PM
Is it possible?  I've seen many videos of purported magnetic motors.  Every one of them, no matter how convincing looking, gets comments like "oh, they're blowing air at it from off screen" or "there's magnets underneath" or whatever.  Is there anyway to satisfy all these things that skeptics put forward as a way to explain what is going on?  (For example, in the mecsdgp video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb05BaRmqU), we see the rotor covered with magnets rotating as stator magnets approach, but skeptics claim air stream is powering it.  But what if during video just as rotor starts turning, they zoom out to show empty entire room, then that criticism is eliminated.)
Let's say Johann Bessler were alive today.  And he wanted to convince people of the legitimacy of his wheel with a video.  How would he do it?  Here are some of my thoughts.  One thing, you should have a human being interacting with the wheel in the video.  Computer graphics have come a long way and can make very realistic representations of objects, but with human beings so far I think they still don't have those down so you can't tell the difference.  That's just to take care of the broadest possible faking you can imagine, which would be the video could be claimed to be a total fake made up from scratch via generated graphics.   Once you have a human with the turning wheel, the skeptics can claim the wheel contains a motor powered by a battery.  Well, here is my possible foil to this.  Let's say you put the Bessler wheel in a bathtub and turn on the water.  Fill the bathtub up with water with the wheel there spinning around.  If it continues to work even after the water is halfway up the wheel (and make sure you both have the wheel able to admit water into it, and show this on camera), that would be pretty convincing evidence it was not faked, wouldn't it (note: I don't actually know if the Bessler wheel would continue to work underwater, but it seems like it should (although perhaps much more slowly) since it is a totally mechanical device powered by gravity).  Any electrical motor would be shorted out, especially if you used salt water (in fact, a good idea would be as part of the video, take a small electrical motor connected to a battery, have it running, and dip it in the same water, and show what happens - and hopefully it will be shorted out and stop working :)).  Even better, fill the bathtub with mercury, but then I REALLY don't know that it would continue to work.

So the question is, is it possible using just a video to show totally convincing proof of the validity of an overunity device, such as the Bessler Wheel? Or will the skeptics always have a way to explain everything?
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: fletcher on May 12, 2014, 12:01:08 AM
Video it outside - have two streams simultaneously, one a pan shot & another closer - have humans interact with it - keep the volume up loud, pick up the wheel & move it to another location on the grass - take it off one stand & place it on another - keep it uncovered so the mechanics can be seen & studied ;7)

P.S. Bessler, never said it was a gravity powered machine [urban myth] - he described it's animation as due to 'imbalance' - he variously described its motive force as due to preponderance, excess weight, excess impetus - AFAIK, not once did he say that it was a gravity wheel or overbalanced  though of course that is easy to latch on to.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 12, 2014, 02:32:21 AM
Is it possible?  I've seen many videos of purported magnetic motors.  Every one of them, no matter how convincing looking, gets comments like "oh, they're blowing air at it from off screen" or "there's magnets underneath" or whatever.  Is there anyway to satisfy all these things that skeptics put forward as a way to explain what is going on?  (For example, in the mecsdgp video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb05BaRmqU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb05BaRmqU)), we see the rotor covered with magnets rotating as stator magnets approach, but skeptics claim air stream is powering it.  But what if during video just as rotor starts turning, they zoom out to show empty entire room, then that criticism is eliminated.)
Let's say Johann Bessler were alive today.  And he wanted to convince people of the legitimacy of his wheel with a video.  How would he do it?  Here are some of my thoughts.  One thing, you should have a human being interacting with the wheel in the video.  Computer graphics have come a long way and can make very realistic representations of objects, but with human beings so far I think they still don't have those down so you can't tell the difference.  That's just to take care of the broadest possible faking you can imagine, which would be the video could be claimed to be a total fake made up from scratch via generated graphics.   Once you have a human with the turning wheel, the skeptics can claim the wheel contains a motor powered by a battery.  Well, here is my possible foil to this.  Let's say you put the Bessler wheel in a bathtub and turn on the water.  Fill the bathtub up with water with the wheel there spinning around.  If it continues to work even after the water is halfway up the wheel (and make sure you both have the wheel able to admit water into it, and show this on camera), that would be pretty convincing evidence it was not faked, wouldn't it (note: I don't actually know if the Bessler wheel would continue to work underwater, but it seems like it should (although perhaps much more slowly) since it is a totally mechanical device powered by gravity).  Any electrical motor would be shorted out, especially if you used salt water (in fact, a good idea would be as part of the video, take a small electrical motor connected to a battery, have it running, and dip it in the same water, and show what happens - and hopefully it will be shorted out and stop working :) ).  Even better, fill the bathtub with mercury, but then I REALLY don't know that it would continue to work.

So the question is, is it possible using just a video to show totally convincing proof of the validity of an overunity device, such as the Bessler Wheel? Or will the skeptics always have a way to explain everything?

The best way, beside what has been mentioned, is to have clear plans and instructions for easy replications in the video, and once these start to appear, then you are in good shape.  If others post their videos of their replications, and they work, that is very hard to argue with.  We never, ever see this with those videos on the net using air, etc.

Bill
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: gmbajszar on May 12, 2014, 03:24:54 AM
>> Is it possible?  I've seen many videos of purported magnetic motors.  Every one of them, no matter how convincing looking, gets comments like "oh, they're blowing air at it from off screen" or "there's magnets underneath" or whatever.  Is there anyway to satisfy all these...

Answer: No. It is not possible. Even if it is 100 percent clear that it works, they will say the same thing against it. 90 percent of comments will be like that. There is nothing we can do.

But 10 percent are skeptic, and there is that one percent, possibly an educated East European who understands perfectly what's going on. But East Europeans say little. And the less you know the more you say.

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 12, 2014, 04:04:57 AM
>> Is it possible?

Is there anyway to satisfy all these...

Answer: No. It is not possible.

There is nothing we can do.

Please see my above post.  That would take care of it 100%.

Bill
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2014, 10:38:17 AM
Is it possible?  I've seen many videos of purported magnetic motors.  Every one of them, no matter how convincing looking, gets comments like "oh, they're blowing air at it from off screen" or "there's magnets underneath" or whatever.  Is there anyway to satisfy all these things that skeptics put forward as a way to explain what is going on?  (For example, in the mecsdgp video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZb05BaRmqU), we see the rotor covered with magnets rotating as stator magnets approach, but skeptics claim air stream is powering it.  But what if during video just as rotor starts turning, they zoom out to show empty entire room, then that criticism is eliminated.)
Let's say Johann Bessler were alive today.  And he wanted to convince people of the legitimacy of his wheel with a video.  How would he do it?  Here are some of my thoughts.  One thing, you should have a human being interacting with the wheel in the video.  Computer graphics have come a long way and can make very realistic representations of objects, but with human beings so far I think they still don't have those down so you can't tell the difference.  That's just to take care of the broadest possible faking you can imagine, which would be the video could be claimed to be a total fake made up from scratch via generated graphics.   Once you have a human with the turning wheel, the skeptics can claim the wheel contains a motor powered by a battery.  Well, here is my possible foil to this.  Let's say you put the Bessler wheel in a bathtub and turn on the water.  Fill the bathtub up with water with the wheel there spinning around.  If it continues to work even after the water is halfway up the wheel (and make sure you both have the wheel able to admit water into it, and show this on camera), that would be pretty convincing evidence it was not faked, wouldn't it (note: I don't actually know if the Bessler wheel would continue to work underwater, but it seems like it should (although perhaps much more slowly) since it is a totally mechanical device powered by gravity).  Any electrical motor would be shorted out, especially if you used salt water (in fact, a good idea would be as part of the video, take a small electrical motor connected to a battery, have it running, and dip it in the same water, and show what happens - and hopefully it will be shorted out and stop working :)).  Even better, fill the bathtub with mercury, but then I REALLY don't know that it would continue to work.

So the question is, is it possible using just a video to show totally convincing proof of the validity of an overunity device, such as the Bessler Wheel? Or will the skeptics always have a way to explain everything?
No it is not possible.  The best one can do with a video is present a case that will motivate independent replication.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 12, 2014, 11:38:15 AM
How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video? (http://www.overunity.com/14625/how-does-one-conclusively-prove-the-validity-of-an-overunity-device-on-a-video/msg402143/#msg402143) Is it possible?
It's very hard to prove because over unity is per definition not possible. Therfor you will never see a video that has everything uncovered. Figuratively, you can't get more than dice number 6 no matter how many times you try. How can anyone prove that they did without hiding one of the six sides of the dice?

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: CANGAS on May 12, 2014, 12:37:41 PM
Hobbyists such as RC car enthusiasts or RC model airplane enthusiasts, break in the small DC motors by dunking them in a pot of water and letting them run for several minutes.

Short out? No.

CANGAS 32
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2014, 01:54:03 PM
Hobbyists such as RC car enthusiasts or RC model airplane enthusiasts, break in the small DC motors by dunking them in a pot of water and letting them run for several minutes.

Short out? No.

CANGAS 32
That is usually recommended done with distilled water which is a good electrical insulator.  The voltages involved are usually well under 10V.   If the water conducted well it would bypass the power to the motor and the motor would not run defeating the point of the break in.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: FatBird on May 12, 2014, 05:00:04 PM
@ Phaedrus,

YES, I believe it's possible.  Just try to film the unit from ALL SIDES and the BOTTOM.
Those of us that Still Have a Brain will recognize OVERUNITY when we see it.

Of course there are paid TROLLS out there that are Constant NAY SAYERS,
BUT just ignore them and MOVE FORWARD.

Thank you for wanting to HELP the WORLD.

.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 12, 2014, 05:48:12 PM
@ Phaedrus,

YES, I believe it's possible.  Just try to film the unit from ALL SIDES and the BOTTOM.
Those of us that Still Have a Brain will recognize OVERUNITY when we see it.

Of course there are paid TROLLS out there that are Constant NAY SAYERS,
BUT just ignore them and MOVE FORWARD.

Thank you for wanting to HELP the WORLD.

.
An independently replicated working device would silence all critics.  Videos will always be subject to accusations of fakery because there are many ways to fake them.  A compelling video even if it is a suspected fake will motivate at least some people to attempt a replication.  So you can't prove a device with a video, but that doesn't matter.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: conradelektro on May 12, 2014, 06:31:01 PM
As many already said, a video alone is not much proof.

Best proof would be the disclosure of all data in order to allow independent replication.

But the most important consideration is whether the inventor of the OU device is willing to give his invention away for free.

If all data is published (and if the device really works, which is unlikely) the idea will be taken over by many companies, people and even scientists. And many will try to sell it as their idea (with slight modifications or minor clarifications).

But as I know the world, the inventor will not be a saint and will try to make money, which will fail, but it always is like this with any invention.

If an OU device becomes reality (which is almost impossible) it will be very important for everybody (and specially for every military and industry) and therefore the inventor will not be able to keep it under his control. So, he can as well give it away for free (may be that allows his survival).

Look at any important invention, the real inventor never got much. It is always others which profit the most.

But this is idle talk, because nobody ever invented a real OU device. It always was deception, fraud or delusion.

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Paul-R on May 12, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
No it is not possible.
Absolutely right. Videos depend on the integrity of the maker. you can show anything on a video.

(Who believes that the planet Alderaan was actually blown up by the Death Star?
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: memoryman on May 12, 2014, 08:55:45 PM
Absolute proof is not possible with a video, nor is it needed. A proper independent validation by a credible 3rd party carries far more weight.

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: memoryman on May 12, 2014, 09:02:34 PM
to Lancair-ES: I looked at building the Lancair IV-P in the '90s. Beautiful fast plane, but >4000 hrs was too much.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: gmbajszar on May 13, 2014, 03:36:56 PM
Artificial unity.
Overbalanced Artificial.
Perpetual Unity.
It hurts when people don't believe it.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 17, 2014, 12:55:31 PM
@ Phaedrus,

YES, I believe it's possible.  Just try to film the unit from ALL SIDES and the BOTTOM.
Those of us that Still Have a Brain will recognize OVERUNITY when we see it.

Of course there are paid TROLLS out there that are Constant NAY SAYERS,
BUT just ignore them and MOVE FORWARD.

Thank you for wanting to HELP the WORLD.

.
Can you explain how overunity can be recognized? Even IF it was possible to achieve, I have a feeling that it would take more than a brain to figure out why it is overunity.
Moving forward to a destination infinitely far away would not get you any closer. Moving forward by increasing efficiency closer to 100% would be more possible. The goal must first be to find a way to recycle energy effectively. Then you can try to increase efficiency further. Approaching 80-90% efficiency is hard enough. Making it 95-99% would be a sensation.

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: phaedrus on May 18, 2014, 12:00:08 AM
It may well be true that a video will never convince a Hard-Core Skeptic like MarkE.  But what if this Hard-Core Skeptic were to have a working Bessler Wheel right in front of him, rotating away?  Would the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Could the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Or would it be necessary to dismantle the machine before they would be convinced?  And even if that were done, I wonder if they would be convinced.  If you are so wedded to a certain view of the way the universe works, it might be very hard to have that view shattered (not even "might", it WOULD be).

But what I wanted to say was, IF this person could be convinced, IF it is possible to convince this person, then I would think that sure it is possible to do this with a video.  After all, think about it.  We possess 5 senses:  sight, hearing, touch, taste & smell.  A video recorder is able to make a streaming record of 2 of those senses.  Would the other 3 senses, taste, smell, or touch ever enter into what is necessary to do that convincing?  Taste and smell, I don't think so. Touch, possibly, but let's assume not.   Well then, let's let the person we are convincing go through all the motions they need to do to be convinced.  Now, repeat that same activity, except substitute a video camera for the person's eyes (perhaps they need to be seeing this with stereoscopic vision - well then, record the video stereoscopically) and (a) microphone(s) synchronized to the video for their ears.  Wouldn't that person then be convinced the same way they have been convinced before, seeing (and hearing) exactly what they had seen before?

But I wonder.  If a scientist had a working Bessler Wheel today, but it was the same deal as back in Johann Bessler's time, where he would not be allowed to see inside to know what is making it work, would that scientist be able to convince themselves that this was a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: fletcher on May 18, 2014, 01:45:34 AM
Absolutely not, & rightly so, without the definitive proof of math, or a working wheel that can be first dismantled to see the mechanics & then be independently replicated by others & validated, IMO.

Evidence & facts trump opinion, speculation & belief.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 02:01:39 AM
It may well be true that a video will never convince a Hard-Core Skeptic like MarkE.  But what if this Hard-Core Skeptic were to have a working Bessler Wheel right in front of him, rotating away?  Would the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Could the Hard-Core Skeptic be convinced then?  Or would it be necessary to dismantle the machine before they would be convinced?  And even if that were done, I wonder if they would be convinced.  If you are so wedded to a certain view of the way the universe works, it might be very hard to have that view shattered (not even "might", it WOULD be).

But what I wanted to say was, IF this person could be convinced, IF it is possible to convince this person, then I would think that sure it is possible to do this with a video.  After all, think about it.  We possess 5 senses:  sight, hearing, touch, taste & smell.  A video recorder is able to make a streaming record of 2 of those senses.  Would the other 3 senses, taste, smell, or touch ever enter into what is necessary to do that convincing?  Taste and smell, I don't think so. Touch, possibly, but let's assume not.   Well then, let's let the person we are convincing go through all the motions they need to do to be convinced.  Now, repeat that same activity, except substitute a video camera for the person's eyes (perhaps they need to be seeing this with stereoscopic vision - well then, record the video stereoscopically) and (a) microphone(s) synchronized to the video for their ears.  Wouldn't that person then be convinced the same way they have been convinced before, seeing (and hearing) exactly what they had seen before?

But I wonder.  If a scientist had a working Bessler Wheel today, but it was the same deal as back in Johann Bessler's time, where he would not be allowed to see inside to know what is making it work, would that scientist be able to convince themselves that this was a Perpetual Motion Machine?
People's senses are highly fallible.  One of the least reliable types of evidence is eye witness testimony.

The best evidence of a scientific claim is multiple successful independent replications.

Strong evidence of the energy capacity of a machine is that machine delivering its energy into a load established and monitored by an independent third party.  Strong evidence that the device is not consuming an internal fuel is when under such test conditions the machine delivers more energy than could be stored inside by any known fuel.  Strong evidence that a machine is not receiving energy from the outside through trickery or inadvertent RF is when the machine is tested independently by a third party under conditions and at locations such as inside an RF screen room that are under the third party's control.

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: AB Hammer on May 18, 2014, 02:02:04 AM
Absolutely not, & rightly so, without the definitive proof of math, or a working wheel that can be first dismantled to see the mechanics & then be independently replicated by others & validated, IMO.

Evidence & facts trump opinion, speculation & belief.

I have to disagree with you to a point Fletcher.

Definitive proof of math without a working wheel is not proof at all. The math is for those who can't believe their eyes to help them get a grip on it's reality. To disassemble is not needed as long as there are the parts for another wheel to assemble in front of them and it works the same. This also covers the independent validation. Not to mention that as soon as the video is out. Duplications will happen all over the world. The problem is when this happens there will be a lot of credit thieves out there for the people around them most likely will not know of the original wheel displayed.

Alan
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: gmbajszar on May 18, 2014, 05:41:46 AM
Higher than energy efficiency.

Overbalanced unity (perpetual unity) is a machine.

Now you can watch and believe it for yourself that this higher than E is possible and real.

It will change our world as we know it. What you see in the video is real.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 18, 2014, 06:14:54 AM
Replications people...this is the ONLY way to do this.  Since this is an open source site, that should not really be a problem.  Even if only 2 or 3 people replicate a "working" design, then, the word is out and it is very hard to argue against it.  If indeed a design really works and is replicated, the design will go viral and no one, or entity can stop it.

So far, no one has done this.  I look forward to when it happens.

Bill
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: CuriousChris on May 18, 2014, 10:03:01 AM
Its easy

First you explain exactly where the energy comes from. Then you provide explicit plans.

At least anyone who doesn't believe you has something to ponder.

But if you cannot explain where the energy comes from, Give up! You are only fooling yourself you will not fool many others.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 18, 2014, 10:26:24 AM
I feel that there has been a big confusion between being a sceptic and being a realistic person. We all know that achieving overunity isn't that realistic.
Sceptics are people who doubts the validity of overunity, or think that things are possible in theory, but very hard to achieve in practice.
Realists are people who knows that the validity of overunity are false, and consequently cannot be done in practice.

There are more realists that sceptics in here I think. I am a realist, not a spetic (in my opinion  :D  )
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 18, 2014, 11:17:30 AM
I feel that there has been a big confusion between being a sceptic and being a realistic person. We all know that achieving overunity isn't that realistic.
Sceptics are people who doubts the validity of overunity, or think that things are possible in theory, but very hard to achieve in practice.
Realists are people who knows that the validity of overunity are false, and consequently cannot be done in practice.

There are more realists that sceptics in here I think. I am a realist, not a spetic (in my opinion  :D  )
Technically, a skeptic is just a person who judges based on available evidence.  A cynic is someone who adheres to a belief system regardless of the available evidence.

Over unity per se may be something that is very unlikely to ever be found.  But new sources of energy are still quite possible.  When a new source is found, if it is not recognized it will appear to be over unity.  I'll take whatever we can find that is:  cleaner, and hopefully cheaper and more practical than fossil fuel and the old style light water pressurized nukes.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: cheappower2012 on May 19, 2014, 03:15:22 AM
To MarkE
Sometimes its very hard to figure out a skeptic a few of the other major
skeptics here believe a free energy device is impossible,and even if possible it could never
come from anyone here(unwashed ignorant  masses)  not said in this manner, but have implied this.
So what is your opinion, do you think its possible a real free energy device could come from someone on this forum.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: ramset on May 19, 2014, 03:40:11 AM
Lancair
Quote
achieving  OU isn't that realistic. Sceptics are people who doubts the validity of OU or think that things are possible in theory, but very hard to achieve in practice.Realists are people who knows that the validity of Overunity are false, and consequently cannot be done in practice.

end quote

So I walk down the street the sky grows dark and I feel or hear a sound like a whisper that goes thru your toes to your scalp .....and BAAAM Flash
all hell breaks loose    a thunderstorm balancing the power flowing thru the atmosphere from the star 93 million miles away communing with the huge spinning mass of molten metal at the center of the planet....

Overunity ??
Naah no way we could ever figure that out ,  never happen,  where do you see evidence  or even a remote possibility that there could be excess energy looking for a  place to go ?

its not like energy is  falling from the sky or staring you right in the face...

silly guys

here is how far science has gone with something as complex and mind boggling as static electricity

http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation (http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation)
[thx to wavewatcher for the link]

Mark E don't play for money with the man in the Cheappower suit [he will win]

8)
thx
Chet
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: MarkE on May 19, 2014, 05:12:35 AM
To MarkE
Sometimes its very hard to figure out a skeptic a few of the other major
skeptics here believe a free energy device is impossible,and even if possible it could never
come from anyone here(unwashed ignorant  masses)  not said in this manner, but have implied this.
So what is your opinion, do you think its possible a real free energy device could come from someone on this forum.
I think that it is very unlikely.  If in the unlikely event someone comes up with strong evidence  then it is only fair to objectively evaluate that evidence.
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 19, 2014, 08:35:29 PM
Lancair
Quote
achieving  OU isn't that realistic. Sceptics are people who doubts the validity of OU or think that things are possible in theory, but very hard to achieve in practice.Realists are people who knows that the validity of Overunity are false, and consequently cannot be done in practice.

end quote

So I walk down the street the sky grows dark and I feel or hear a sound like a whisper that goes thru your toes to your scalp .....and BAAAM Flash
all hell breaks loose    a thunderstorm balancing the power flowing thru the atmosphere from the star 93 million miles away communing with the huge spinning mass of molten metal at the center of the planet....

Overunity ??
Naah no way we could ever figure that out ,  never happen,  where do you see evidence  or even a remote possibility that there could be excess energy looking for a  place to go ?

its not like energy is  falling from the sky or staring you right in the face...

silly guys

here is how far science has gone with something as complex and mind boggling as static electricity

http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation (http://news.sciencemag.org/chemistry/2014/05/static-electricity-defies-simple-explanation)
[thx to wavewatcher for the link]

Mark E don't play for money with the man in the Cheappower suit [he will win]

8)
thx
Chet
I obviously misspelled a LOT, or just put wrong words in the wrong order in my comment. I dot NOT believe in OU  ;) . I just tried with my locally learned English, here in some other country than England or the US, to explain the difference between a sceptic and a realist.

Scepsism does not occour from the one who has the knowledge, but from the one who does not. A realist (should) have the knowledge to say "No it wont work" instead of being sceptic. That was my point  :)

Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 19, 2014, 08:51:44 PM
I think that it is very unlikely.  If in the unlikely event someone comes up with strong evidence  then it is only fair to objectively evaluate that evidence.
Sadly there are no calculators which knows the exact answer to X/0. So evidence would be hard to evaluate :D
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Paul-R on May 20, 2014, 04:12:48 PM
to Lancair-ES: I looked at building the Lancair IV-P in the '90s. Beautiful fast plane, but >4000 hrs was too much.
I had a look at their web site. Very nice indeed.

Has anyone introduced them to the Bob Boyce 101 plate electrolyser for improving fuel consumption? There might be vibration issues. Or even an electric motor? (I guess batteries would be an unsurmountable problem although N. Tesla would have had that fixed in a jiffy).
Title: Re: How does one conclusively prove the validity of an overunity device on a video?
Post by: Lancair-ES on May 21, 2014, 11:02:34 PM
to Lancair-ES: I looked at building the Lancair IV-P in the '90s. Beautiful fast plane, but >4000 hrs was too much.
It's better to keep the scale down then and reduce the building time to 4 hours :-)
They have the most beautiful airplanes I know of. Very slim, perfect lines, fast and reliable sports planes.