posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by djcubed
Again... You can't take the battery out of the equation... it is needed because the motor requires power. They are not claiming that the motor
doesn't use power... They are claiming that it creates more power than it uses. Even a car shuts down if it has no battery and alternator. Similar
No, not a similar concept at all. A car will run without a battery, just on alternator-supplied current.
Let us say that it takes 1 watt of power to run the motor, but it produces 1.1 watt of power while it is running. A battery would be needed to start
the motor, yes, but once it is running it should be able to power itself without the need for a battery. It should be possible to remove the battery
completely once it is running and show operation without the battery.
Would it be harder to build? Possibly. But is it to much to ask of an inventor to demonstrate how effective their product is? If that be the case,
then I doubt we will ever see actual self-generation of power. There are rules one has to play by in this game, and one of them is to make good public
impressions regardless of the cost or inconvenience.
And I have not called Steorn or Bedini or anyone else a liar. Mistakes happen. During that videotaped proof-of-concept I alluded to earlier, the
inverter in the power supply overloaded and shot the fuse. I had to replace the inverter and fuse on-site. That was a mistake. It did not degrade the
results I eventually got, but it did emphasize that I was not 'ready for prime time' so to speak. That's a big reason neither you nor anyone else
have seen the videos of that test.
It's also the reason I am building a more extravagant supply. It is expensive, it is time-consuming, but it is necessary to properly demonstrate the
prototype. I should expect the same adherence to transparency and public perception from anyone else that I do of myself.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.