Hi Lucian Stefan
Ali said his invention has no coils, moving or not moving ,he said no coils

 I am only trying to keep this thread on topic.
Anyway it is looking like your information is going down well on another thread
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8073.msg202494;topicseen#msg202494

 so please if you can figure out how Ali's device works let us know your thoughts 

cat

you are right
this is not Ali's device
this off topic

@Lucian Stefan
You're quite correct in what you claim for the invention in the PDF.
The inventor(s) were French, and what others had analyzed was that iron was being transmuted to a different isotope with surplus electrons being harvested.
I would have to search for the Internet reference, which was old.

Re-edit, try this:

http://www.rexresearch/meyernmr/meyer.htm
(This will give you more information than the post above.  It worked the first time I tried it, but the second time, Comcast gave my an error that 'rexresearch' had an unknown page.  The correct address was still on the browser address bar and it worked.)

--Lee

Sorry, typo above,
correct Web address:

http://www.rexresearch.com/meyernmr/meyer.htm

have you ever seen a such invention working ?

Talking about Michel Meyer's two patents,- No. I haven't made it. There was two engineers in Romania, in the '80th- they claimed that the Meyer's resonant generator should work. I repeat- I haven't made it myself but in the theory of this generator I don't find anything wrong. So I believe that claims. Two or three years ago, I have contacted "Science et Vie" asking about this article of S.V. no. 700 of January 1976- they told me that was the only article about Meyer and it was not a joke, the young physicist (that time) Meyer making several demonstrations even at the magazine's editorial, with the control devices of other physicists. That time, Meyer obtained his first patent but the text has been censored. More recently, in 1995, Meyer obtained another patent somehow similar in the matter of principle applied.
I haven't replicated any Meyer's generator. I just know that in Romania in the middle '80th two engineers did it and they claimed the device woked. That's all.

I've never said that "Meyer generator" schould be the same with the "Ali's generator". In the attachament the cover of "Science et Vie" no. 698/nov. 1975 and the content of this revue.

if you want to speak of this device go on this thread :
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=4333.msg84558#msg84558

a lot of replication , nothing working

Note that "science et vie" is a popularization publication not very serious. "Renaud de la Taille" was an enthusiastic journalist but has not a solid scientifical background

Hi folks

I am new at this forum. I have read all this thread and I am really curious if Ali's device is truly overunity or no. Sorry if my english is no perfect, I am from Slovakia.

I have some idea what this mysterious siphon effect could be. Imagine two capacitors with the same capacity C. Let both plates of both capacitors to be electrically neutral (i.e. number of positive and negative charges is the same). First capacitor is charged by moving some number of electrons from one plate to another. After that first plate has charge +Q and second plate has charge -Q. So the charge difference is 2Q. Voltage between plates then will be:
U1 = 2Q/C

Second capacitor will be initially charged by moving double amount of charges. So amount of charges at both plates will be -2Q and +2Q. Voltage between plates will be:
U2 = 4Q/C
Now comes important step. Imagine, that from some source we move charge -2Q to second plate. After this plate becomes electrically neutral. But first plate still contains charge -2Q, which creates potential difference:
U2' = 2Q/C (in absolute terms)

So if we use conventional voltmeter, these two capacitors will be indistinguishable. But if we connect positive pole of first capacitor with positive pole of second capacitor and negative pole of first capacitor with negative pole of second capacitor, there will be current flowing because of charge imbalances. So maybe not only voltage is important, but also potential! Remember, that Ali said, that his circuit must be powered with AC source with both polarities against neutral wire.

I have some idea what this mysterious siphon effect could be.
Imagine, that from some source we move charge -2Q to second plate. After this plate becomes electrically neutral. But first plate still contains charge -2Q, which creates potential difference:
U2' = 2Q/C (in absolute terms)

So if we use conventional voltmeter, these two capacitors will be indistinguishable. But if we connect positive pole of first capacitor with positive pole of second capacitor and negative pole of first capacitor with negative pole of second capacitor, there will be current flowing because of charge imbalances. So maybe not only voltage is important, but also potential! Remember, that Ali said, that his circuit must be powered with AC source with both polarities against neutral wire.

Jan, that is an interesting approach.
If I combine this charge imbalance with the non-ideal behaviour of Elco's there must be an natural oscillation when connecting two of such capacitors.
By switching the connection at very specific time slots you can move charges and keep the capacitors unbalanced.

That method was used with HV by Tesla and D'Arsonval. To capacitors joined together and spark gap between them.
 
It's essential to have capacitors which can be charged by induction ,that means if one terminal is connected to source of HV positive second is charged by induction,pulling electrons from other capacitor.
The effect is pulling electrons from ground while generating on each spark gap discharge high frequency oscillations. If there is a path between both capacitors to dump such oscillation to third capacitor, it will be charged at a very fast rate. The end is inverter which drain third capacitor at slower rate (for example 50hz).
Seems it's one of the method of using radiant electricity in one kind of OU devices. BAsed on Tesla patent from 1901 for example 0685957 -Apparatus for the utilization of radiant energy

Hi Jan,
how would you do this ?

Just using one one wire (one connector pole) only ?

See my uploaded file for preliminary scheme. Two loads are equivalent for elevation in Ali's example with bath tub.

Wouldn´t this only work with high voltage ?

Hmm, don´t you think that there will really be flowing charges, although
both voltages of both caps will be the same ?

I think principle should work independently of voltage. But maybe high voltage is needed for measurable effects, i dont know at this moment.

Some notes to work of Ali. I think DC unit is not necessary for testing overunity. Even if power unit will be DC, current flowing from source can have alternating components (f > 0Hz) when making fourier analysis (maybe high frequency spikes). So we need quality hf ampermeter with true rms, ideally high frequency oscilloscope to see shape of curves. I also noted that control system is powered with 12V, 0.25A (i cant see videos because i have only mobile internet). This power input should also be measured with the same method to convince all sceptics.