reply to post by cupocoffee
That's quite a bit of work just to get it to power a house, and people don't want that. They want something solid-state - a black box with no
moving parts that just sits there and supplies power indefinitely.
So that is my guess as to why the battery-charging units are not being more heavily pushed and promoted - they are waiting until they have the
solid-state versions perfected, and then they will promote and sell those instead.
Why is it that all of these inventors of these over-unity devices are caught in the damned stone age of electronics? I mean... really.
For starters - a few transistors takes care of the whole "not solid state" issue. I mean... really, take a basic solid state course. Or... hell -
just swap in a PLC if you don't want to dick around with making an analog comparator-based switching system.
Also, the last thing I'd be doing with an over-unity device is charging batteries. "Wut - The hell?" in common internet speak. Establish a
'resonance' in your circuit with a capacitor bank - breaking your device operation down into individual 'cycles' - from which there should be a
marked over-unity effect. This would eventually lead to an 'overflowing' capacitor bank, which would be capable of being disconnected from mains
and used as a perpetual energy source limited in output by the size of your capacitor bank, magnitude of the over-unity effect, and the power handling
capabilities of your device (obviously, you can't be coursing gigawatts of power through a hand-held device).
Yet... for whatever reason, these -electrical engineers- seem to lack the common-sense application an -electronics technician- sees as
So instead of asking "what can we do about this? how can we help?", you instead defecate all over the inventors and call them fraudsters, con
men, snake oil salesmen.
Because a lot of them are. They convince the hopeful and idealistic elderly to invest their life's savings into companies that do not produce a
product and have no intention of producing a functional product.
I honestly have plans to search for an over-unity phenomena and to develop a device that harnesses such a phenomena - and when I feel I'm on to
something, I will ask for -donations- and set up a separate line of accounting specifically for that purpose, publishing statements on the account at
regular intervals. That's if I need donations. In either case - I'd never sell my design as a set of schematics on the internet. Ever. Or a kit.
I'd sell the assembled product. Yeah - I might be hesitant to let people take a look-see inside of the thing - but chances are that I will not have
made the thing alone, and anyone I worked with will be getting -billion- dollar offerings for information on how it works. May as well go ahead and
let people prove it works so I can sell it before half a dozen Chinese companies have their own version.
Perhaps I'd be a little more clandestine - use such an over-unity device to power a particle accelerator and transmute various elements or undercut
industry prices for the chemical separation of elements.... indirectly profit off of the fact I don't have to pay for energy, rather than selling the
goose that laid the golden egg. Would really kind of depend upon what kind of ambitions I had at the time and how long I felt the advantage could be
The point is - I have ambitions to create an actual over-unity device; making money off of it is a side-effect worth consideration. I do not have a
desire to make money off of my ambition to create an over-unity device. There's a difference - and the idea is, honestly, tempting. I know enough
about electronics to make a convincing-looking display, and I am a person who comes off sounding quite intelligent to most people, as well as not
being very intimidating. I could easily get quite a few people to invest $100 here, $500 there, and probably pull off a few in the four-digit range.
If I did it 'correctly' - I could even shield myself from legal repercussions. And I would have more than enough to simply 'retire' for most of,
if not the rest of, my life.
I'd be concerned if someone said they didn't find the idea tempting.
I suppose the inverse could be applied to me: "If it's so easy to con people, Aim, why don't you do it?"
You've no idea how many times I put on a song and dance for teachers in grade school to get extra time on an assignment - simply because I am
somewhat lazy and a procrastinator in the extremes. Whether the teachers actually believed me or not, I honestly don't know - but few had problems
with giving me extra time.
That said - I'm not one for trying to convince little old ladies that they can invest a few thousand dollars into my 'project' and see it become
tens of thousands that can be passed on to their children, grand children, or what-have-they.
I have no problem with over-unity seekers. I've really not much problem with the people selling their schematics or kits (at least a snake oil
salesman gives you snake oil). What I do have a problem with are these guys that set up fraudulent companies that seek investor capital (never do
they sell stock, it seems - even though penny-stocks have become quite popular and a great asset to companies and common investors, alike) based
around what is a deliberate attempt to con people.
It's certainly underhanded to sell someone a bogus schematic for $10, or a bogus kit for $50 - but it's a completely different thing to convince
someone to trust you with their money (sometimes thousands of dollars), and then simply 'run' with it. Sure - no investment is without risk - but
they invest under the impression you will use their money to subsidize the development and growth of a product/business that will generate a return,
later. That's a violation of personal trust and involves much larger sums of money. It's not dishonest - it's cruel.