Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

### GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

Many thanks.

# New Book

Products

WaterMotor kit

### Statistics

• Total Members: 84192
• Latest: Alin91

• Total Posts: 897181
• Total Topics: 15807
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 1
• Guests: 29
• Total: 30

### Author Topic: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge  (Read 17071 times)

#### prometheus_effect

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 60
##### The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« on: April 19, 2005, 11:57:09 AM »
Here is my Prometheus Effect OU challenge,

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Imagine a level surface with two poles at right angles to the level surface. One pole is 1 meter high and the other pole is 2 meters high. The poles are 10 meters apart. The acceleration of gravity is 9.81m/s^2.

Now imagine a 1kg steel ball resting on the level surface next to the 1 meter pole.

Lift the steel ball to the top of the 1 meter high pole, then allow the ball to drop back to the level surface and measure its final velocity. From this calculate the resultant Kinetic energy as KE1.

Lift the steel ball to the top of the 2 meter high pole, then allow the ball to drop back to the level surface and measure its final velocity. From this calculate the resultant Kinetic energy as KE2.

Confirm KE2 - KE1 is the effective work done to lift the steel ball the extra meter from the top of the 1 meter high pole to the top of the 2 meter high pole.

Connect an inclined ramp from the 1 meter high pole to the 2 meter high pole such that the ball's starting and final heights are the same as before.

At the side of the ramp place a pair of magnet arrays arranged such that their facing pole faces are opposite and an equal distance from the centre line of the inclined ramp. They are closer together at the top than at the bottom of the inclined ramp so as to form an increasing magnetic density along the inclined ramp with sufficient
Ferromagnetic attraction so as to attract the ball up the inclined ramp.

Lift the ball from the level surface to the top of the 1 meter high pole and onto the start of the inclined ramp at a point where attraction up the inclined ramp is balanced by gravitational attraction down the inclined ramp. At this point the ramp starts and there is no ramp down incline from the ball resting position. Slightly nudge the ball backward and measure the falling ball's final velocity. From this calculate the resultant Kinetic energy as KE3.

Replace the ball at the starting position on the top of the 1 meter high pole / start of the inclined ramp and slightly nudge the ball up the inclined ramp. Notice the ball is pulled up the inclined ramp by the increasing magnetic field density and drops off the ramp as the ball reaches the top of the 2 meter high pole's end of the inclined ramp. Measure the falling ball's final velocity. From this calculate the resultant Kinetic energy as KE4.

Confirm KE3 is with-in 5% of KE1 and KE4 is with-in 5% of KE2. Note KE4 is in excess of KE1 / KE2 and the difference is OU energy.

Note that no outside energy was used to move the ball along the inclined ramp from the top of the 1 meter high pole to the top of the 2 meter high pole yet the falling ball has significant excess Kinetic energy to that which would have been expected. Conventional theory would suggest the final Kinetic energy KE4 should be less than KE1 / KE2 as the ball experienced various forms of frictional and eddy current loses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I call this OU effect the Prometheus Effect and have verified (on a smaller scale) that the above energy gain actually occurs. Others have independently verified a similar energy gain but using a different measurement system. Would a demo of this (the Prometheus Effect) qualify as a real OU effect to you? Comments either way and discussion of the measurement protocol most welcome.

I have released the data on the Prometheus Effect on this forum for non commercial use. Please contact me for commercial use.

Prometheus Effect
« Last Edit: April 19, 2005, 12:07:37 PM by prometheus_effect »

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

##### The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« on: April 19, 2005, 11:57:09 AM »

#### hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7976
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2005, 04:15:03 PM »
In my view, yes, it would,

Well done example.

Regards, Stefan.

#### prometheus_effect

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 60
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2005, 03:28:00 AM »
An OU measurement system has been developed which directly measures the amount of energy creation for each pass through a Prometheus Effect OU gate. The Prometheus Effect is what is at the heart of the SMOT device. Details can be found at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheus_effect/

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

##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2005, 03:28:00 AM »

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2005, 03:56:59 PM »
Dear prometheus_effect,

If you performed an experiment then why don't you reveal your exact data?  I believe OU may be possible on the quantum level such as the intrinsic electron spin, but your experiment is on a large scale.  I do not believe your experiment is free energy much less over unity.  I would be very interested in seeing your exact experimental data including the dimensions, where you placed the measuring equipment, etc.

Sincerely,
Paul

#### prometheus_effect

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 60
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2005, 12:57:46 AM »
Hi Paul,

If you log-in to the Prometheus Effect site ALL the data and videos are there including independent verification done by the team of Jean-Louis Naudin and French physics Professor Pierre Clauzon. The data is very solid and the OU Prometheus Effects is easily duplicated from the full disclosure data on the site. You could even check out the OU claim yourself.

Just goto:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prometheus_effect/

Prometheus Effect

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

##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2005, 12:57:46 AM »

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2005, 03:49:34 AM »
I checked it out for a few minutes so please excuse my dumb questions.  I played 3RampsLinked.avi.  Looked interesting but the quality was so poor I couldn't see any details.  So I tried ClimbDrop.mpeg.  Much better quality.  I did not try the ram's because I think those are realplayer.  I don't have rp and don't care for it.

Anyhow, I have one issue with the demo from the only video I could see details with, ClimbDrop.mpeg.  I don't like that the ball falls lower than where it started.  I'm sure you can see my reasoning, which is -> When the steel ball falls farther it can escape the magnets (which pulled it up) more easily.  Have you already or could you repeat that particular exact experiment except please allow the steel ball to fall to the same level where it started.  I would like to see if the steel ball can still escape.

Thanks,
Paul

#### prometheus_effect

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 60
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2005, 03:56:03 AM »
Hi Paul,

Thanks for taking the time to have a look. You really do need to view the two Real Player videos and then study the measurement data (the .gif and .txt files) obtained by the independent OU verification team of Jean-Louis Naudin and French physics Professor Pierre Clauzon.

Best regards,
Prometheus Effect

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

##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2005, 03:56:03 AM »

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2005, 04:35:37 PM »
Dear Prometheus Effect,

I just downloaded JLNClauzonOUTest.ram.  The other one, LongerOUVerification.rm, is no longer available.  I get the "Document Unavailable" web page error.

I have a big problem with the JLNClauzonOUTest.ram video.  I see the point they are trying to make in the video and I disagree.  They are showing how far the ball rolls when going through the magnets verses a drop off the ledge.  This is completely unscientific and unfair.  The ball has horizontal velocity in the first test and nearly zero horizontal velocity in the 2nd test.  In the 2nd test, most of the kinetic energy is dissipated from the near vertical fall.  If you drop a steel ball straight down, then it will not bounce up with hardly any velocity.  So most of its energy is dissipated.  In the 1st test the steel ball has horizontal velocity.

Here's an example that clearly demonstrates what that test is doing.  Take a nice smooth rounded ramp, like a skateboard ramp.  Take the ball to top of ramp and allow ball to roll down ramp.  After the ramp is a slight inclined hill.  Measure how far the ball rolls up the hill.  Now replace the rounded ramp with a much steeper inclined ramp-- nearly vertical.  Drop the ball from the top of the ramp and measure how far the ball rolls up the hill.  You will see that in the first test with the more rounded ramp that the ball rolls higher.  In both ramp tests, we are moving the ball up to top of ramp.  This gives the ball potential energy.  When the ball rolls down it gains kinetic energy.  In the first ramp test, we are transferring more of the kinetic energy to the horizontal axis.  In the second ramp test, we are transferring most of the energy in the vertical axis.  Can't you see the difference?  In the second ramp test, most of the energy will be dissipated in the downward movement.  Whereas in the first ramp test most of the energy will be dissipated in a horizontal movement, moving up the ramp-- a horizontal movement.  To really clarify this for you, take both extremes.  Throw a rock straight down.  Then throw a rock sideways.

Huge difference!

I have a valid test and perhaps you have already performed this test.  All that matters is can the steel ball travel to the same height that it started AWAY from the magnets.  In other words, you drop the steel ball, it rolls up the hill as the magnets pull it up, and now it must break free from the magnets.  So it seems obvious that you are using gravity to break the ball free from the magnets.  So do what ever you think is best in breaking free, just as long as the Steel Ball ends up away from that end of the magnets AND at the same level that the ball start.  If you have such a video then please by all means show me where it is.

I don't see this as free energy because it seems like a balanced test.  That is, you use magnetic attraction to pull away from gravity, then you use gravity to pull away from magnetic attraction.  If this was free energy then all you would have to do is get about four of your ramps and rotate each one so that they form a closed loop circle.  The ball would eventually end up where it started and would continue to roll up and down the ramps forever.  I suspect somebody has already tried this and failed because it seems like the obvious test.

Sincerely,
Paul

#### hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7976
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2005, 09:54:00 PM »
Hi Paul,
in a loop for at least 5 times until the ball too much energy and jumped out of the tracks.

I think the new measurement system of Greg Watson is a valid OU measurement system.

Regards, Stefan.

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

##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2005, 09:54:00 PM »

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2005, 10:23:46 PM »
Dear Stefan,

Don't you think such a machine would be top of the video file list at the Prometheus Effect Yahoo groups?  I looked at all of them and did not see such a machine.  I am very skeptical on this one Stephan.  How long has this Prometheus Effect steel ball magnet thing been around?  If it is new, as in few months, then that is a different story.  If it's been around a year or more than I see nearly 100% chance that Greg Watson and Epitaxy is a hoax and not true.

I'm sorry, I just don't see this one being free energy, much less OU.  I think OU is possible on a quantum scale, not macro scale.  I see free energy possible on the atomic scale such as the Magnetocaloric effect and perhaps on a more macro scale such as Bruce Depalma N-machine.

My 2 cents ... and I know I know, worth every cent of it. :-)
Paul

#### hartiberlin

• Hero Member
• Posts: 7976
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2005, 10:38:24 PM »
Well Paul,
at least Greg has claimed it and also Epitaxy, as he still lived, was claiming it too.
Unfortunately he died shortly after this in a car accident... hmmm...

Greg didn?t want to show it at this time, cause he wanted to go
commercial with it, which failed due to several reasons, he told us no
inside informations.. just problems with his partners.

Well he now claims, that he has another closed loop device ,
which he will only show under an NDA and  until his SMOT measurement system is
fully explored and understood.

Regards, Stefan.

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

##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2005, 10:38:24 PM »

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2005, 11:18:55 PM »
Unfortunately he died shortly after this in a car accident... hmmm...

I'm very sorry to hear that!

Greg didn?t want to show it at this time, cause he wanted to go
commercial with it, which failed due to several reasons, he told us no
inside informations.. just problems with his partners.

See, I tell people that it happens all the time.  I hope people will begin to list ->

http://overunity.com/index.php/topic,179.0/topicseen.html

#### prometheus_effect

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 60
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2005, 10:35:55 AM »
Posted on the Promtheus Effect discussion group:

--- In Prometheus_Effect@yahoogroups.com, "softwarelabus"
<softwarelabus@y...> wrote:
>
> there is no way in this world you are or anyone is going to
> beat me by getting me to waist valuable time and money building
> this machine.

Beat you? At what? Making a OU device? You lost that round in 1997
when I published the SMOT plans.

Well as least you have finally exposed yourself and revealed your
true intentions. To cast doubt, foster your own ambitions, goals and
theories.

By the way Paul, flux gate motors are not OU.

> I am here to discuss with anyone factual data, any
> step-by-step processes, and to help these people see the "the
> light."

See what "Light"? The "Light" of YOUR theories? Who appointed you or
even asked you to do this? How dare you insult the intelligence of
the other list members by talking down to them like this.

If your time is so pressed, then maybe you should stop wasting it in
this forum and show the world how you can make a OU flux gate motor.

Greg

#### PaulLowrance

• Guest
##### Re: The Prometheus Effect, an OU Challenge
« Reply #13 on: April 28, 2005, 06:04:02 PM »
Greg,

Why do you simply copy the same message and post it in numerous places?  This is the FOURTH place you have posted this exact same message.  Are you OK?

Once again, here is my reply:

+++++++++++
Greg,

"prometheus_effect" <prometheus_effect@y...> wrote:
> > there is no way in this world you are or anyone is going to
> > beat me by getting me to waist valuable time and money building
> > this machine.
>
> Beat you? At what? Making a OU device? You lost that round in 1997
> when I published the SMOT plans.

You don't seem to understand? I have clearly stated that IMHO the SMOT & so-called prometheus effect project is a distraction. So if I am convinced the SMOT and prometheus effect are false then why would I allow myself to build the machine when others have already done so. If I allowed myself to fall victim to your distraction then I would be beaten.
Cast doubt? Well, it seems I am the one who is offering science and math at your Yahoo forum. On numerous occasions I have challenged anyone to find error in my math or step-by-step process-- still no takers. I have asked you repeatedly for this so-called document that contains proof. Still to this day you have not point to the exact location of this document. You would have to know that I would find any errors in such a document if they existed.

I lost the round in 1997, Greg???  I just found out about the SMOT & so-called prometheus effect just recently this year, as in about a month or so ago.  Don't you recall?  You were the one who came to the Yahoo Group forum that Sterling so kindly created for me and you attempted to bring it down by false science claims.  You tried to find error in my research and you failed miserably.  Don't you recall the major mistake you made in the permeability & RL time constant-- how I so clearly pointed out your error?  That's how I found out about the so-called prometheus effect.  It would seem that you are the one who lost the round Greg on my forum and also back in 1997 when you claimed a looping SMOT.  Many people including Stephan talk about your old claims of looping the SMOT.  So if you had the smoking gun 8 years ago Greg, then what happened?  Can you in good conscience take these poor people another 8 years?  I'll pray tonight that these people will see the truth in you.

> By the way Paul, flux gate motors are not OU.

BTW Greg, I never said flux gate motors are OU. You are the one who
believes in Over Unity. I have repeatedly claimed that I am not a
follower of OU, but rather I prefer to use the term Free Energy.  Please quote me!  I'll be waiting.

> > I am here to discuss with anyone factual data, any
> > step-by-step processes, and to help these people see the "the
> > light."
>
> See what "Light"? The "Light" of YOUR theories? Who appointed you or
> even asked you to do this? How dare you insult the intelligence of
> the other list members by talking down to them like this.

So you think that it should be a dictatorship society? That people
cannot come to your prometheus_effect forum to offer math and step-by-step processes to disprove you?

> If your time is so pressed, then maybe you should stop wasting it in
> this forum and show the world how you can make a OU flux gate motor.

Please by all means show these people where I stated the flux gate motor is OU? You are the one who believes in OU. I have clearly stated many times that I am not a follower of OU but rather free energy.  There is a vast difference. I think you are now grasping at straws to the point of trying to put words in my mouth. You put words in my mouth without quoting me.  I'll be waiting and will remind you of it.

I think your days are coming to an end Greg.  People are now posting your 8-year-old posts.  Even people such as Joe are now questioning you.  My motives are to help people free themselves with Truth.  I am not trying to judge you.  Believe me Greg, there is a far greater judge then I!!!

Wasting my time?  I think about the well being of other people Greg. Do you understand getting past the Me Me Me stage?  Why do so many people in modern society have such difficulty with being of service to others; i.e., getting past the "Me" stage, spending ones time helping others.  I have signed up for numerous local projects to help the community.  It's called Unconditional Love.  It's called being spiritual.  It's called being a good person.  It's called Pure Logic.  Even the character portrayed in Star Trek known as Spoke said while sacrificing his life to others, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Sincerely,
Paul

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### Re: Greg, did you ever see this layout?
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2005, 05:13:49 AM »
I drew this awhile back just for fun.
Butch