I just want to put in my two cent's worth on this topic.

I see Paul's point on pulling out, since others might move ahead in the technology he is pioneering.
It is a fine line, something like a tightrope walk, he is embarking upon.

I think he will succeed in this push to commercialize, since he has already learned how to commercialize another product, the insecticide.

His contribution so far is to show that overunity is a legitimate goal technically.
That is a big contribution, and he should not lose credit for it.

Tom Schum

Everything is just a matter of time now.  There are very viable cheaply produced solar solutions near  (I'm talkin less than $0.5 per watt... I've seen as low as 0.20).  I've seen many plans and a lot say they are within a year of production.  So lets say 5 years   The power of these companies will fold enough IMO within another 5 years of those coming out that they will no longer be able to control OU devices from coming out.

without a coil and external energy with this construction. In his motor, rotor magnet moves from low density field to hi density field (like steel ball in SMOT experiments). But when the rotor magnet reaches the last stator magnet, in front of it density of field is lower then that behind it and the rotor magnet stops. To achive a closed loop without using external energy, he have to change the construction drasticaly. With this construction it is imposible.

That's correct. Sprain's motor utilizes the principle of SMOT but lacks its most important feature -- the interruption of the loop (magnetic loop) by gravity -- spontaneously, that is. He has to apply energy from without to overcome the sticky point. Now, that we have Snyder's experiment, Sprain's device is more or less obsolete.

Stefan, with all due respect, I think Sprain?s and Snyder?s motors are incomparable in their importance. If what I see in Snyder?s video is a real effect, this is a revolution. For the first time in history something always thought impossible is directly demonstrated in flesh and blood ? the spontaneous production of energy from a conservative field. This is unheard of. You know that the mainstream science has always denied such a possibility. The ramifications will be enormous not only technologically but in our understanding of Nature as well. Be sure, if the effect is real much better engineering solutions will be found.

For the importance of inauspicious experiments such as Snyder?s recall the experiments by J.J Thompson or E. Rutherford at the Cavendish Lab in Cambridge or, say, A. Compton?s effect. What is the direct practical application of shooting alpha particles at an Au foil? Obviously, none. However, you, of course, know what revolution experiments such as those have caused. Here in Snyder?s experiment we?re facing something even more dramatic and with much greater far-reaching impact on science and technology.

I should also say that in my opinion, the real breakthrough was made by Fleischmann and Pons when they demonstrated the continuous production of excess energy in an undivided electrolysis cell and later with the invention of the SMOT by the Australian fellow Greg Watson when direct periodic production of excess energy is demonstrated for the first time in a mechanical device. I don?t mention Howard Johnson who probably should be credit as the pioneer but he has never directly shown his achievement for a peer-reviewed scrutiny. Same applies, unfortunately, to Mike Brady or anyone else who for one reason or another hasn?t been forthcoming to peer-review. Paul Sprain revealed his invention but, as I already said, its principle is nothing more than a SMOT but lacking the most important feature of SMOT ? sudden spontaneous disruption of the closed loop trajectory along the magnetic field due to gravitation.

before you break out he champagner
wait til Wesley L. Snyder can show it also running in a static stator.

OK, let?s wait and see. As a matter of fact, I don?t mind if the stator is not static, as long as he or someone else doesn?t hold it in his hand and as long as no energy is input from the outside.

As far as Sprain?s device it?s pretty intuitive and of far lesser overall importance than Snyder?s motor. I?m not at all concerned at this point of time about the low output of his motor. First, I?d like to see that it?s a real effect, then we?ll talk.

Hi Stefan,

I had high hopes that Wesley Snyder will show the effect without touching the parts of the motor. Unfortunately, he hasn't done it yet. There have been several other claims, as you know, the latest of which is that of @xpenzif. As a general rule all these claimants disappear without a trace. Some of them (recall that Mike from the Bedini thread, or that latest @xpezif) will hang around for a while just to wet our appetite only to disappear later forever. Take one Torbay, for instance, or that Danny from Ohio or that other fellow from Canada (or were they two of them) etc, etc. Anyway. Secrecy hurts the inventors the most. So what that Frank Fecera and a dozen others hold US patents for perpetuum mobile's? Nothing whatsoever unless they demonstrate openly the viability of their devices which they haven't done yet. Recall also that Paul Sprain was already to have shown a self-sustaining device. Nothing of the sorts yet. As you have probably noticed, I've changed my understanding of the practical role Paul Sprain's device has. In fact, now it seems to me this is a very promising direction to go for practical purposes, if the effect is real, because the brute force Paul Sprain applies avoids the excruciatingly sensitive adjustments the regular pmm's require. It's being a perpetuum mobile has yet to be demonstrated, however. This we should not forget.

I had to remove all the thread info about Paul Sprain?s
new motor, cause he demanded it,
cause his investors have invested millions of dollars
into it and they want first to patent it.

They can't. Its been done before. That is why Takahashi never bothered.
Paul.