Hi all,

I'd like to invite everyone to visit a website I have posted at

Site:
http://globaltechphysics.frihost.net
(was http://globaltechphysics.frih.net)

It is an anthology of all of the postings made by a man named Graham Gunderson around the year 2001.  Of particular interest to the experimenters in this group is the "Articles" page, where there is actually practical advice for experiments.

I think this website really speaks for itself.  All of the information is publicly available, but should be considered property of Graham, excepting posts made by other members which are included.

Hope this is useful to some of you here.

George

George,

I'm giving you my permission to post my writings online, or host them on your site. I never copyrighted any of this stuff, and I don't intend to. That said, this is very old information. I'm not even sure if I'd agree with it anymore. If it helps inspire you, great. If it irritates "dingbat", that's OK too. Each of you do with it as you like.

I think I dropped off the Internet radar sometime around 2002. I found myself using too much time sitting behind the computer screen, and not enough sitting at the workbench actually building stuff. I have learned that the only way for me to make lasting progress in this field is at the workbench, testing ideas. Time spent behind the computer feels good, but often ends up being relatively unproductive in terms of OU results. It's been said, "Life rewards action". I'm not yet convinced that sitting at the computer classifies as "action".

Some guy named "Mike" recently built a motor, which a few months ago was a hot topic here on overunity.com, and the thing appears to self run. I quietly built my own, and found that if I hide a tiny watch-battery where the SS relay is supposed to go, I can replicate the scope traces perfectly. Without that battery, though, I can't get Mike's motor to self run. I can replicate Mike's video performance even using a few "button" cells which are very small. It is sort of amazing, how small the battery can be, to imitate what is shown in the video.

But I am willing to entertain the notion, that Mike didn't deceive anyone with a battery, and that his motor was real. If so, then I suspect Mike has no clue why it works, and cannot successfully build a second one that works like the first. Maybe he tried to improve it or change something (like most inventors do), and found that the OU was inexplicably lost, and will not return even with the machine restored to its "original" form. Maybe this embarrassed him enough to disappear. Maybe we'll never know!

My point here is, that over the years, most of the inventions we talk about were created by tinkerers, often with very limited (or incorrect) knowledge, having no solid understanding of why their machines "tick". It doesn't matter what you "know", it only matters what you *do* with that knowledge, whatever it may be. The knowledge itself is good for nothing. Understanding does not matter in this place. When you discover something truly new, it is by-definition, brand-new information, therefore you will not at first understand it -- even if you think you do.

The honest and successful OU builders are "inspired" or willing enough to put forth the 99% perspiration, and life -- after a long struggle -- rewards them. You succeed by simply never giving up, even long after the point where you appear to be a fool.

So if my former writings inspire you to perspire -- to grab stuff and build -- then more power to you! Go for it dude because you ROCK. Build that stuff because you are a real-life cowboy in the OU Wild-West. You are who we all admire.

If what I wrote is impenetrable hyperbole, please kindly change the channel. In 2001, I intended to convey my limited knowledge, without revealing specifics that render my hard-won discoveries un-patentable. Some people understand parables, others do not. All I ask is, don't waste your time if it doesn't work for you.

----

I'd like to make a comment about Tom Bearden. I believe he has done his best, and does not mean to deceive anyone. But I also believe he has guessed wrongly in his attempts to explain several known and working devices.

Bearden is good with words and jargon, and admits he is not himself an experimenter. he doesn't build stuff, doesn't solder or assemble anything, has no inventions (as far as I know) of his own. He acts as an interpreter and mouthpiece.

Which is all fine and well, except for the fact he has given his own educated guesses as to why devices like Sweet's VTA and the MEG are supposed to work.

But the real thing that makes Sweet's VTA "tick" -- oscillate -- is not what Bearden says it is. I have found a mechanism which is far more reasonable and effective, and with enough hard work and insight, you can too.

Same with the MEG. The *real* reason it works ought to be obvious. It has nothing to do with strange aberrations of the A field or the Aharonov-Bohm effect or anything else Bearden has written on the topic. In fact, one of Bearden's vector diagrams, showing how the A field induces an E field (E=-dA/dt) is profoundly incorrect, notwithstanding Bearden uses this as the basis for his explanation of the MEG's workings. He just made a mistake, that is all.

Bearden does a great service inspiring people, as he did for me, but at the same time, he does his readers a massive disservice for stating his educated guesses, his professional opinions, as if they are facts. We are all wrong sometimes, and when Bearden is wrong, he takes many people with him along for the ride. This makes it harder to redeem the areas in which he is, in fact, correct!

----

I was hired in 2003 by Magnetic Power Inc to work full time on OU. Since then, I have  learned that most of what I thought I knew about OU was just illusion, and that OU is, in a sense, more practical than a lot of people give it credit for.

I can state the basics, without breaching contract. Atomic magnetism is the product of electron spin. All electrons spin as an inherent property of their existence. The question of where OU power comes from is analogous to asking, why do electrons spin without being able to slow down. What propels their perpetual spin?

Anyone who finds a way to control or modulate specific factors related to ferromagnetic electron spin has possibly found their first step to practical, useful, marketable OU. I know this is vague. Use your own imagination. Innovate, don't imitate!

It is among my deepest regrets that I cannot freely publish and disseminate what I view as one of "the" keys to OU, in anymore detail than this. There is so much I wish I could say, and it is very tempting to just write it and press SEND. If I were reading this I would be irritated at such a statement, so I guess I'll stop. If I could tell you what I know, I would.

I have discovered and learned these things because I am paid for my time. If I worked another job, building computers or whatever, I would not have had the time to make these discoveries, refine the science, or produce the inventions. For this reason, I owe the discoveries and the inventions to the company whose support makes it all  possible. Naturally, they wish to protect their investment in me. I want to protect my position with them, so I can continue digging up the facts behind OU without having to do this work only in my off-hours or spare time.

I could find a better paying job. But I'd still have to go to work in the morning, or come home in the afternoons, behind a diesel rig once in a while. In a better paying job, I'd still have to watch that black smoke aiming at our sky in the name of private profit, but know I was doing nothing to stop it. Here, I still have to breathe somebody else's pollution, true, but I know I spend all day and most of my waking life doing whatever I can to give the world a better, cleaner option that respects nature and human health. That's worth more than money, more than the respect of strangers, more than my own life among 7 billion others.

What matters in the end, is that somebody -- anybody -- produces a safe, effective OU technology we all can use and afford. By whatever means will achieve this end, so long as they are humane. Steorn is trying and may succeed, among others who do the same with less publicity. I am giving it my best shot also, as a relative unknown, but my devices (unlike Steorn's) are solid-state. I am doing my best to make rapid progress. But to do so, I have to be off the computer actually working! Best of luck to you all.

Stefan, if you're reading this, your forum is the best!!

Graham

Graham,
many thanks for your nice words !
I am totally with you 100 % !

Good to see you back and producing great work at the bench.

Hopefully we will see in the future one product fromyour inventions
on the marketplace.
I surely will buy one !

Good luck and good success to your company.

Stop by over here again when you have time
and inspire us again with some insights,
when your patents are secured.

Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.