Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
Initially the demand for overunity devices will be huge, but once the demand has been met, the business will slow down to a crawl untill someone comes up with a better model/idea.

I just dont think the tax man is going to be very happy with people paying just once for energy.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Power plants are built all the time. The energy requirements of the country, and the world are constantly increasing. Demand for power plants will always be there. So there is no reason to believe that demand would drop off at any point.

Think about it like this, a hydro power plant produces power for people's homes. People pay for this power. So, a smart business man will start a company, get funding, and build a hydro plant. Then he will begin making money by selling the power that is generated.

If Tesla had some free energy device out there, someone would start a company, build a large scale version of this device, and then sell the power it produces. Can you explain how this is any different than a hydro-plant? Why does the government allow hydro plants, but suppresses this Tesla free energy machine? Neither of them would be using oil, so what's the difference?

Power plants pay taxes, so why wouldn't the government was someone to set up a power plant using Tesla's free energy device? After all the term free is misleading, and it still costs money to manufacture the device, people will still have to pay the power company for their power, and the company will still pay taxes to the government. So what logic is there in the argument that the government won't allow tesla's free energy devices, when they would be no different in effect than hydro, geothermal, wave, wind, etc power?

You can build a wind turbine or solar array right now (depending on local regulations) buy an electric car, and be pretty much free of oil companies. Who is stopping you? Not the government. In fact the government will actually help you out, by giving you tax breaks. So what advantage does a supposed Tesla machine have? You already have the option to be energy independent, you just choose not to exercise that option. So a Tesla free energy device would change nothing.

Originally posted by coolhanddan
I have never made this one, but it looks simple enough for your approval, since you will not believe my word alone.

That man is a trickster and he knows it. I was hoping someone would bring up something like this, as it's a PERFECT example of how these free energy proponents are horribly misleading people who are ignorant of how this stuff works. No, I'm not going to just bash it and move on, I will explain it to you, so you can see this man, just like everyone else, is accomplishing absolutely nothing.

He says the power output is greater than the power input. OK. But what does that mean? It doesn't mean what you think it does. He is measuring wattage, wattage is a measurement of power. Power and energy are NOT the same things. He is not generating energy, he is generating power. May seem like I'm arguing semantics here, but I'm not. Power and energy are not the same thing at all. There is a key difference that you must understand in order to understand how these people are tricking and misleading others.

Power (measured in watts) is energy over time. A simple way to think about this is by comparing a high power laser to a standard household light bulb.

A light bulb can put out the same amount of ENERGY as the laser can, but it takes longer to do it, so it has less POWER. The laser on the other hand, puts out the exact same amount of ENERGY, but in a much shorter time, so it has more POWER.

So, when this man says that he has a circuit that puts out more POWER than it consumes, that means absolutely nothing. If he had a circuit that puts out more ENERGY than it consumes, then YES he actually has an over unity device. But he isn't, so he doesn't. Do you understand now?

The language used by these free energy people is downright trickery. Because all of their devices may very well have a larger POWER output than input, but not a higher ENERGY output than input. That is the key difference, and this is the method in which all these people can mislead you into believing that they are actually accomplishing something, when they are not.

Further proof is the fact he says he is using a toroid in his circuit. This is nothing new. Stereo receivers have been doing this forever. It's a power supply. It increases power (watts) which is the only thing this man is doing. He is NOT creating, capturing, harvesting, etc ENERGY. That is the KEY difference here, which proves these people are a fraud, and why anyone who knows anything about how electronics, electricity, and energy work don't even pay attention to them.

Energy is measured in Joules, or (x)watt-hours. That is not how he is measuring his circuit, because he is not measuring energy, he is measuring power, which proves he is NOT generating ENERGY which is what we are trying to get. Power is easy to make, energy isn't only hard to make, it's impossible. Which is why he isn't doing it.

There should be no need for the batteries if he is somehow generating energy. No capacitors either. He should be able to remove the batteries, and the LED will stay illuminated. Wonder why he didn't do that? Because then even the people that don't know about this kind of thing will be able to tell he is a fraud. But the fact he doesn't do that should give you a hint anyway.

One more thing I forgot to put in my previous post, and figured I'd separate it as my last post was pretty long.

He talks about having the LED burning for 9 hours and the voltage didn't change. Not impressive.

Consider this. Your average little indicator LED like the one in his circuit draws about 20 mA or less. Your average AA battery is around 1500-3000 mAh. Lets go with the low end of battery capacity (mAh) at 1500, and do the math.

1500 mAh means you can draw 1,500 milliamps (mA) for one hour. Or you can draw 500 mA for 3 hours. Or 100mA for 15 hours. In the case of an LED with a draw of 20mA, a really cheap low-end AA battery could power it for 75 hours. And he said he left it on for 9 hours? From the looks of the AAs he was using, they were either high quality alkalines or rechargeables. Capacity was more likely in the 2000-3000mAh range.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing surprising about the fact that he was able to leave a tiny LED lit up for 9 hours without significant voltage drop.

Do you see now how these people use misleading language and other statements to trick you into thinking they are doing something they aren't?

Sorry for the long-winded triple post, but I'm confident that any of these claims can be explained logically and accurately, which I just did. No magic there, no free energy, no nothing but trickery, fraud, and completely understood, commonplace, mundane circuits.

Hehe sorry for posting again..

I keep trying to think of how people will support this man's idea that is is producing energy, as I said in my previous posts he is just creating power, not energy. I realize some people may think "well he is creating power, that's still energy right? That additional power has to come from somewhere, right?" Very reasonable question (that I realize nobody has asked yet) so I'll answer it beforehand.

He mentions also that he is using a tank circuit (AKA a LC circuit)

These types of circuits have many uses, but one use is to increase current. As I also stated in my previous posts, watts are a measurement of power. Well how do you calculate watts? By multiplying voltage by current. So when he uses a tank circuit, he is increasing current, therefore increasing watts, which he calls power, but wants YOU to THINK he actually means energy.

If I think of anything else that could better explain that video I'll post, and try to keep it short. If you have any questions or something that you still don't understand about how his circuit works, feel free to ask and I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
Initially the demand for overunity devices will be huge, but once the demand has been met, the business will slow down to a crawl untill someone comes up with a better model/idea.

I just dont think the tax man is going to be very happy with people paying just once for energy.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Power plants are built all the time. The energy requirements of the country, and the world are constantly increasing. Demand for power plants will always be there. So there is no reason to believe that demand would drop off at any point.

Think about it like this, a hydro power plant produces power for people's homes. People pay for this power. So, a smart business man will start a company, get funding, and build a hydro plant. Then he will begin making money by selling the power that is generated.

Good points, but your falling into the trap of thinking the current way if energy distribution would leak over into the new. From what i have seen and read on the possibility of over unity devices, they would be quite small and modular. Meaning that if you have an over unity "box", adding another box increases the output 2/4/8/16 fold etc.

It wouldn't be a far stretch for people to start putting over unity devices in this lofts or attics to power thier homes indefinatly. Once you have an over unity device installed in your home you would never have to pay for energy again. The only time that you would need to pay is if you wanted more power, or wanted a new version/model of the device. This would again in turn be very very cheap as its modular. Simply bolt on another box.

Hydro/nuclear power plants would be obsolete, along with the power lines and pilons they use to distribute said energy. Why would you pay to have energy deliverd to your home when you can pay once for a box and have your street free from ugly powerlines?

The only money to be made from over unity devices is the manufacturing and installation of the devices. Someone is going to have to build and install them. But once everyone has one of thease devices, the sale on them would be subside very quickly.

At the end of the day there will be a marginal amount of money to be made from them initially, but once the world has been hooked up with all thier power needs, then there will be a very small market left over.

The point i was trying to make is that energy distribution would become very cheap and wouldnt be the multi billion dollar empire it is today. And when you think how much money the tax man takes from the fossile fules industry.....you can imagine how miffed thier gonna be when the oil companies dont make money anymore.

Originally posted by coolhanddan

I am not saying anything either by the way, all I did was post the easiest looking thing to replicate with free instructions. Running a house on it is a stretch since we are dealing with a simple circuit and 2 AA batteries.

Well you did well. You presented a simple and cheap test for over-unity, complete with Youtube video and Jones' bio. Your post was compelling

The claims are that milliamps are recovered, even taking the guy at face value (which I can not, and you should not as well if you read the wiki link about him) , we are talking 1/10 of a AA battery. Nothing that john_bmth would want but submitted for your approval.

Even if it's only taking in 10 milliWatts and producing 80, it's the principle of the thing that's significant. That's a COP of 8.0, that's over-unity.

And with a simple little solid-state circuit too, no big complicated motors and batteries to worry about...

Not enough power to run a car or a house, but it would be proof of principle anyway. Even if you just prove the principle, that would go a long way to show the naysayers that it's real.

c

PS "potential", "energy", "power", Joules, Amps, Watts etc are all related to each other by very simple math.

What's significant here is a Physics professor demonstrating Output 8 / Input 1 with high-end oscilloscopes and measuring equipment.

I know you praised our friend James and gave him stars, but it still appears as if his intent was to dissuade you from trying the experiment. To mislead you into believing that there's nothing to see here, when there actually is.

c

Originally posted by James1982

His circuit is very easy to make, and the components are cheap. So build it, and then connect the output back to the input side. If he is actually somehow creating energy in this system, he shouldn't, and you shouldn't need batteries, it should be able to run the LED without anything other than the circuit alone. Let me know how that turns out.

Oh sure, just leave it with me - that random internet blogger guy who is NOT an engineer.

Wouldn't it be better, for credibility purposes, if we had an actual engineer do it? Or even better, a little panel of like three or four engineers?

I mean, if you're going to do something, might as well do it right, right?

Also, question for you. If I increase the wattage in a circuit from 10mW to 80mW, but then I go back and find that there's still only 10mW being drawn from the battery, wouldn't that mean that the energy's coming into the system from some other source?

c

I still believe in magnetic devices and Ive spent years making the best damn magnet brakes you ever seen
the key is to force the magnet device to pull ,not push. if its pushing it will discharge the magnet but as long as its pulling it will always charge itself and keep its magnetism.

if you think of a helix spring loaded rotor that lobes like a cam with 2 magnets pulling towards each other then your chances of success are great and you will be on the right track in achieving over unity