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
self-evident.
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
maintained.
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.
And people think this guy's legit? 
