Reply to Tempest
Maybe the crap is your real intention and modes. At first why you would want to make one? 1) For the money? You would have taken advantage of someone elses idea, besides you will have to face industries financial wars. 2) For fame and honor and a prize? Again you would be trying to take the prize and honor that someone else would deserve. Let us go now to better motives: 4) To experience the joy of a new undreamed device hither too. Good! this is good! But you have to remember the 1st innovators never give a detailed manual or recipe. Simply because they do not intent to educate. Inventors have chaotic laboratories and they are not always conscious of all the significant details of their practice. They do steps 1, to 100, but consider non-obvious only 1-5. So they tell you do 1, to 5. You do them and nothing happens. You go back, and you say: You know what, your device does not work! Then they do not bother to answer you, because your attitude is already undermining to them. So you have concluded: That inventor is crap. But it might not be necessary. Let us go now to even better motives: 5) To apply them to my household to reduce my energy costs! Great! This is a good sovereign individual intention. ( I had myself such a motive with a couple of free energy generators that I knew they were working)  But Alas! Innovations are never so ready and in final development to apply them immediately to our household. Especially without many years verified practice, neither production, neither user manual….Now to even better intentions: 5) To enhance your understanding of physical reality and scientific knowledge. Now that is a great and spiritual intention.! Bravo! (I had and still have such motivation myself) But alas again! The really impressive zero CO2 emissions free energy generators must be really a theoretical breakthrough too, otherwise there would have been found long ago inside University laboratories. So most probably the inventor would not be in a position to explain to you why it is a  scientific breakthrough. And most probably it would be simple enough to make it yourself in a laboratory. Besides with such motives we are more satisfied with a complete detailed description like in a patent application, plus a detailed physical explanation, rather than manufacturing  it ourselves. And again here we  would follow the real conscious human sequence: First I think then I act, and make. Not vice versa. Aim fist and then shoot, not shoot 1st then aim. Have you ever noticed that learning software from a good help or manual instructions is always, faster, more confident, with less frustrations, and mistakes, that learning it the other way, as they say “fall and swim”? At least for me this is how it works.
In conclusion: We better introspect and analyse all the spectrum of our real intentions plus expectations:
1)   I want to do it to make money
2)   I want to do it to get honour
3)   I want to do it to save energy
4)   I want to do it to enhance my scientific knowledge
5)   I want to prove that humanity can make it to a new energy model
6)   I expect full scientific explanation
7)   I expect full detailed explicit instructions (better ….than Microsoft’s manuals [this is joke])
   I expect to tell me full instructions how to avoid fallacies or fraud by unreliable innovators. (like police instructions in a storm? [this is joke again])
9)   I expect it to be simple and cheap so I can make it with little money in my laboratory
10)   I expect that in a few months innovators will solve the 50 years problem
11)   I expect that all this will happen in this site.
12)   I expect that I will not be harassed my secrete services, claiming that its already a classified technology.
13)   I expect that I will not be harassed by fuel industries that may have antagonistic old fashioned energy.

So check yourself! What are really your intentions. Will you improve as a person pursuing it? Do you have a good chances? Are your expectations realistic? Can the 21st century sovereign  individual do what 20th century group-coordination was accomplishing? Do you think first then act? Vice-versa? Both? Can we do the seemingly impossible without many mistakes, and a very short time, without big industries being involved to it?
Let us not hash to crap everything at the fist difficulty

As I perceive it about Blacklight Power, yes.

But remember that in Rowan University would never use a term like overunity, as it is not considered an academic science term.
I have more than 10 years that I was studying particle physics, and I do not have the full information of what are doing in this laboratory. But from their videos, seems that the powder they produce must  be the new fuel that substitutes gasoline, or coal . They make it through a reaction of water, salt, and other common materials. In this reaction they provide less energy that what is stored in the powder. The extra energy is provided from unknown source as they imply. Therefore we should understand them as overunity process. They claim that it costs 1-2 cents per KWH versus 6-10 cents per KWH of coal. Quite complicated experimental devices! Not indeed so elegant compared to other amateur's devices. But academic engineering! The important is that academic science in Universities is starting to accept energy production (implicitly assumed renewable) , where energy is provided from the physical reality in an unknown to them way. Of course they do not put too much emphasis in publications on that especially at industrial production.

Remember that we are living in a new century that the sovereign individual must learn to accept the principles of his own self rather than authorities.
You must understand that I do not claim to be an authority on that. It is just my understanding.

Talking about the other site that you mentioned http://hydrino.org/ (which I have not studied, I just visited after your remark, and I thank you for this ) and unified field theory:
 Historically physical science was trying to unify 3 types  particles interactions in accelerators and other experiments.
1)   Quantum electrodynamics  2) Weak interactions 3) Strong interactions
They were not successful.

Do not bother to understand what each of these interactions are about. I myself gave up being interested years ago.
And now I see them as collective mind traps, that block the evolution of physics, mainly due to the bad story of the nuclear weapons.

But in my work (link of my fist post) and I think in the meaning of the above site about unified field, the indented interpretation is different. They refer I think to the macroscopic laboratory classical field interactions of bodies like   1) Newton’s universal attraction (gravitostatics) , 2) Maxwell’s electromagnetism and  3)….some other that might by called (Einsteinian-like) gravitodynamic (or antigravity).

Here the things are easier to understand as we are talking about usual  high school simple laboratory experiments.

As far as I know there is not any generally accepted unified field theory here either. My work is the keys to develop one. Only the keys not the final equations.
And there are many half-spiritual half-philosophy of science sites that assume in advance that such a unified field (or  theory)  does exist.

Skipping all the mathematical and other physical details, what someone can safely and clearly keep in his mind about such a unified-field is the next

The present false implicit DOGMA:
1)   Standard Academic physics assumes implicitly that all the permanent  material world  starts with the proton, neutron and electron particle. Nothing else  permanent exist before them in the background.
So the gravitational field, and electromagnetic field, are though as “empty space” where the interaction propagates. Between the above three  particles there exists nothing but “quantum vacuum”

That is why Academic physics is totally unable to explain the existence of the free energy devices and many true over unity devices.
This implicit dogma  is I would say a ……”reptilian mind” attitude, because older centuries physics and great minds like Newton, Euler, Maxwell, Thomson etc all insisted that no there is a finer material layer the so called by them “aether”.
E.g. Maxwell; initial term for the electromagnetic field was “Electromagnetised Aether” .  We have almost total collective amnesia of it!

So if any one would formulate equations of this aether that would unify Newton’s gravitation. Maxwell’s electromagnetism etc as aspects of the same gaseous aether material layer, this would be the unified field. Once this is done, then the energy of the free energy generators and overunity devices could easily be explained as added from this material layer (aether)

In my work, I refer to the matter made from protons, neutrons, electrons as
the 3rd material layer or resolution or density, while that of aether, as the 4th material layer or resolution or density. It is finer and again it consist of …..say micro-protons,  micro-neutrons, micro-electrons (or aetherons) that may be even 10^(-36) times smaller than a classical electron and permanent (not temporary as the quantum particles).

This is the main idea in very simple high-school physics terms.

I hope I did clarified it and answered your question.
Always to my understanding. I  do not enforce any authority.

well said Tempest, i can and have built and repaired many things but i do not see a single thing here worth the effort.
you can explain in half a page and a couple pictures how to make a DC electric motor out of wire nails tape and a piece of board(done it in school) but nobody can explain an experiment to demonstrate OU in a hundred pages here with 20
utube clips.

This discussion topic is not to give instructions for any OU device to make. You are looking in the wrong place.
The links with my theoretical work in my 1st post are put here with the intention of possibly inspiring innovators and inventors in their own work.
If they are inspired good. If the ideas mean nothing to them (no bell rings in them) it is again OK.I am not interested personally in any prize for OU, and for the last 5 years I work intensively in Management and Finance. I changed specialisation.  I simply keep a look in the state of the art of free energy devices as a hobby, and I just though that putting a post to link my work might be of help to some, and avoid the repetition of old mistakes of researchers. I do it for the sake of rationality. First think then create and manufacture. This is the main point with the internet: surplus creative work solves problems.
Do not undermine it.

@conradelektro i think you would be surprised what can be done in a small lab or workshop with off the shelf tech.
the transistor was invented in 1920. semi conductors have been used for over a hundred years. the problem we have is nobody can explain the basic principals of operation for an OU device. lots and lots of words that mean nothing,
or that mean something only the author understands.
 drk you talk a lot but say little. the Testatika looks neither simple easy or complete to me. invented 20 years ago and all they do is sell videos. if this is a good idea i want nothing to do with anything bad.
fritznien

1) I tend to agree with conradelektro.
On the other hand I believe that even Universities are helped if there is relevant discussion (inspite being confusing, like Babylon and imperfect).
If we produce generators that harvest renewable (?) energy and none of the producers neither the Academic world understands where the energy comes from is ....a one of a kind of a  situation. But if we are satisfied with that and think that this is the way it should be, then something very wrong goes on with our civilisation.
Human beings are spiritual beings, not meant to be magicians to just get the result without a rational causal explanation.
I assume it is temporal.
The definition of an OU is: A device or process where the output utilizable energy is larger than the input energy provided by the user. The difference is provided by nature or physical reality, in an non-obvious way that may require revision of some formulations of physical laws, but not of the law of energy and momentum conservation.Under this definion  OU are proven to exist
2) Now about small laboratories of individuals and big industries:
Big industries and Universities should be ahead. It would be easier.
 But they are not!
Instead the big industries for financial reasons(and some secrete official or not military groups for power reasons) are instead pulling back. Given the pressing global climate problems CO2 etc  pulling back is very dangerous for humanity and its survival.
Here is that the sovereign individual comes: Responsible freedom of self-determination and becoming truly self-confident and free to unconditionally be responsible for one's self, without being coerced to accept some higher authority.
And a financial and monetary system has the value of protecting some fairness in deals,only when there are   serious differences of consiousness and self-responsibility development of individuals among societies. The money in macroeconomics is like the temperature in atmospere. Money simply measure activity and circulation of services. With higher Gross domestic product, more money is cut, and all have more resources. And as in the atmospere, temperature differences create winds, so in society differences in accumulated capital creates changes. But not all winds are progressive. Some are regressive. If almost all individuals in a society were of equal development in consciousness and self-responsibility a monetary system probably would not be needed.
The true Globalisation is good not as  a hidden externally hijacked world Government, but as that when the individual becomes through the internet and through introspective self-analysis global.
I have felt it many times while working on free energy: As if the weight of the future development of humanity was on my shoulders. Any one will feel it when working on this way or another experimental,  political or theoretical. It is an opportunity to clear our intentions and grow.
For the moment all this is suppressed. The value of this site is that it tries to correct that, in its limitations of course. The individual laboratory will not do everything, but it will change the collective subconscious. Then one day some more powerful researcher in a University, or Industry will feel comfortable to change old theories fund a research and open the door to exotic renewable energy. Without the many forums and sites and videos in the web this would never be comfortable.
Fear and other unpleasant emotions would always control our mind and consciousness never to discover the rest of the reality.

I hope that one day simple devices in the households would produce all energy and we would not need to be plugged in an expensive electric grid.

3) I also believe that the magnetic generators renewable energy should get priority and put all our efforts there compared to the HHO energy generators and water cars. I do not like H2.
Electric cars powered by the magetic renewable energy are better (less noise too).
Another reasons : The new-electromagnetism propulsion will permit extremely fast air travel, that HHO airplanes never will reach. If we correct the maxwell's electromagnetism to non-linear we get not only free energy but also a new powerful electromagnetic propulsion.

So we should go on but without personal extravagant expectations. And it should be satisfying too.

If you are fortunate enough to have one of those devices
which measure temperature aim it at the field below the discharges.
A drastic drop in temperature will be seen.
Where is the heat going from this field.

Not a complaint per se',
just a constructive point.

They measure IR emission.

They should not be used to measure things
that are actively emitting other spectrum's too.

Coronal sparks are included...

Maybe this will help:

http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/temperature/advances-ir-temperature-measurement-1368



On the other side of that coin, your right.

There have certainly been previous instances
were a measured loss of ambient temperature
has been observed in experimental devices !