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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: David La Point and over unity claim  (Read 4011 times)

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7601
David La Point and over unity claim
« on: February 02, 2020, 04:20:30 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWESbALZELQ&feature=youtu.be
Quote
This video shows you how to build an over-unity device using PrimerField magnetic arrays. This video also lays some important groundwork for the next video on a fusion-based PrimerField energy source.

Offline Toolofcortex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2020, 04:46:24 AM »
Can you imagine how messy this would get and expensive for a 10kw machine?

Offline skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2020, 12:06:32 PM »
Its the same as the SMOT: will not work in closed loop.

Offline Toolofcortex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2020, 03:58:05 PM »
He said that there should be spacers?

 ;D

At what point does somebody apply quality control to his/her invention and say  OK, this might not be doable.

Offline shylo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2020, 10:48:15 PM »
Its the same as the SMOT: will not work in closed loop
I agree, the power it takes to enter

is greater than the force when exiting.
artv

Offline conradelektro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1838
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2020, 08:58:37 PM »
Look at his WEB site https://primercube.org/ and you will see that it contains very strange claims like health benefits and an ion thruster, all based on a bell shaped magnet.

The experiment shown in his video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWESbALZELQ&feature=youtu.be seems to be the only tangible result which is far from health benefits or an ion thruster.


The WEB site https://primercube.org/ seems to present hopes and imagined designs and not facts.

Greetings, Conrad




Offline skywatcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2020, 09:51:58 PM »
The health effects are more plausible than any 'overunity' effects.
Spinning magnets generate torsion fields, and torsion fields have biological effects.

If those effects are positive or negative for your health is a different question.

Offline Toolofcortex

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2020, 10:05:21 PM »
Quite interresting.

For a desperate person that is sick and not getting better by traditionnal means, why not?


Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7601
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2022, 05:07:53 PM »
Bump
Jimboot sharpens a climbing axe to through at the FE barrier wall …..
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4279.msg98743;topicseen#msg98743


Maybe we could ask for a spot on CaptainPecan/Floodrod/gyula builders board ( 3D printer and other skills ?


Shared with gratitude and respect
Chet K

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7601
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2022, 03:01:43 PM »
Jimboot s getting it done


(Handling those neos must be daunting!

Quote from Jim ( link above)

Ok 1st one complete. Getting the pms in is a bitch. It will fire other neos 3m across the room. So he is right about that.
------------------------Shared with gratitude and respect
Chet K

Offline Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2022, 05:43:51 AM »
Thank for posting Chet. David ticks all the boxes for me to attempt replication. Open source, trained working scientist and it came to him in a vision  8)  which is cool. I have a few skinned knuckles  ;D  re the entry/exit forces required and sticky points. Given that in his experiment shows 4 bowls with the pm passing through, he has demonstrated (for me anyway) that this is not suffering the same issues as other mag gates I’ve worked on. The length of the pm passing through the bowl is important. With all n facing out in the bowl a s facing pm is initially dragged in. The sticky point is at the base.

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7601
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2022, 07:54:37 AM »
Jim
If we make a respectful venue here
We undoubtedly will be able to invite
David !


Thanks for doing this ,Will reach out for Stefan tomorrow (actually it’s later today )
About a moderated builders board !


Tremendous Gratitude
Chet K

Offline Jimboot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #13 on: May 01, 2022, 06:49:00 AM »
Sounds good Chet.


With the bowls placed 60mm apart,  the gap between back and front is 15mm. As the 38mm stack of neos exits the first bowl, half of it has already entered the 2nd bowl. I’ll be buying more neos to complete the 2nd bowl. I think this may work as described.

Floor

  • Guest
Re: David La Point and over unity claim
« Reply #14 on: May 01, 2022, 07:04:02 AM »
First video posted here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWESbALZELQ&feature=youtu.be

Measuring the           total work that must be done          in order to push the stack of
magnets into a single one of the domed field units (up to the very point at which the stack
is drawn in) must be done in order to know if the input is less than the output. Peak force
is not an indication of the work done / energy expended. 
                    Yes, that is, total work     in each direction    of entry.

If a linear / series array of the bowls is accelerating the stack of magnets,,,
1. Are the fields from the bowls combining ?
2. If the fields are combining, has this increased the work required to
initially, insert the magnet stack ?

The voltage is successively increasing as the stack progresses through each / the
next bowl.
1. Is this due to an increased speed of travel of the magnet stack ?
2. Is this due to a combining of the bowl fields ?
3. is it work from permanent  magnets ?

If the device were self looped the speed of the travel of the stacked magnets
might continue to increase until some balance against wind resistance is arrived at
or the device exceeds its own mechanical strength to retain the magnet stacks against
centrifugal forces.

Higher speed would produce greater energy and greater power.

Net gain, may or may, or may not be there.  The test method may be flawed.

Opinion...
The demonstrations and oscilloscope displays do not as yet / definitively, demonstrate
a net gain in work from the magnet interactions.
                due to no...
1. peer review
2. replication
3. additional kinds of tests.

Opinion...
1. peer review
2. replication
3. additional kinds of tests.
         are merited here

    P.S.

Thank you to David La Point
        for sharing your explorations !