| Author |
 Topic  |
|
super windy
Junior Member
217 Posts |
 Posted - 08/04/2008 : 17:34:59
|
Hi everyone @ gotwind, watch this video, and imagine connecting this gadget to an ametek motor, or a more powerfull motor, we would be offgrid for sure, I'm really impressed with it, and I will try and get the plans to maybe at somme time build mine, anyway here is the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcjjSfiNNE
Is this real or does it seem to good to be true.
cheerio, hopefully you will be amazed
super windy
|
|
|
gotwind
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
1067 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2008 : 18:39:52
|
Sorry to dissapoint Windy, it is more perpertual motion nonsense.
Overunity is widely reguarded as such and talk of it is banned on some forums.
We can discuss it here on this thread only, just to get it out of the way.
|
 |
|
|
ghurd
Junior Member
USA
337 Posts |
Posted - 08/04/2008 : 21:45:39
|
Really Cool!
No offence intended. I want to believe.
However...
It certainly looks like he knows what he's doing with PMAs.
The little pulley is already on top. Why didn't he connect a stepper motor and a few LEDs? Not efficient, but good enough.
Looks like he could have made an air core PMA in half a day, and run a 100W bulb ?
But he didn't think that was worth the time and $20.
If I made one I believed worked, be dang sure I wouldn't put it on U-tube until it was either patented or grid tied. And it would be a lot bigger.
Mine would run 100 1KW toaster ovens for 12 hours, suspended on glass 10 meters above the ground, 100 miles from the nearest grid. Then everyone could take it apart, put it back together, and I'd do it again.
I'll try to save Ben some time...
I am not as anti-OU research as most people.
Why? Because I believe it could lead to better PMA designs.
I don't believe it is super simple and being done in garages since 1880, but bought / hidden / murdered away.
If it is that simple, someone would have published exactly how it was done, and close enough to be repeatable.
Many designs were published. None of them work.
This gentleman "published" it on U-tube, maybe he did it for the benefit of all human kind.
How much power does it make? Can anyone copy it? How does it work? What are the principles involved?
All I saw was 4 or 5 spinning disks.
"Just to show ya"? Show me what? I'm not sure the first unit was the same as the one shown later.
He picked it up, it went out of camera, then put it down the same way. Never showed the back, and the large disks are not clear.
What did that show me, that it isn't grid powered?
Meaning it is magic, like my cordless drill is OU?
It spins and has no wires, but I'll show everyone both sides and even disassemble, reassemble, and make it work again... on camera.
Ask him questions.
I expect there will be no good answers. Probably no answers at all.
The OU people will believe he was bought out by big oil. Maybe even murdered because he was so smart.
The anti-OU people will believe he is hiding from admiting it is battery powered.
My bet goes to he is hiding.
He invented a OU device after great research, then after realizing everyone before him was right (and murdred), he put it on Utube to save his life?
And somehow in all these hours, he never realized he forgot to show anything about how or why it worked?
If nothing else, he would have realized showing it in public might get him murdered. Unless he showed each and every detail.
He is laughing his butt off, enjoying his 10 minutes of pseudo-fame, while wasting a giga-watt of power spent reading it.
It really did not show anything that couldn't be done with a Hall effect sensor, a few extra hidden magnets & wire, and a few AAA batteries. Easy to hide all that in the rotor.
Some guys did it with RF. It is still somewhat debated if they knew it at the time or not.
I can make an incandescent bulb glow for a week.
I can make a fluorscent light brightly for months or years.
(unless the batteries go dead or the grid near where I grew up goes down).
It isn't hard, and it certainly isn't OU.
G-
|
|
|
|
Joseph
Starting Member
Canada
1 Posts |
 Posted - 09/04/2008 : 06:18:29
|
| Windy, overunity is a very simple principal. I have some plans that have been laid up for a few years. I paid quite a bit for the plans so I can't give them away for free. The guy that sold them to me died a few years back . So I won't be able to guarantee them either. I have not tried it myself , but I am sure they will work. I you are interested send me an e-mail at wxyzscience (at)yahoo(dot)com Joseph, |
|
|
|
super windy
Junior Member
217 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 12:50:51
|
O.k guys I guess I dived into the unknown, everything I have read so far on this type of generator, although it apears that somme people may have a working model of these, but from the comments I see that there is a good chance that if they have a good reliable working model they will only live for a couple of hours, once it became known; since I guess that once you design and build something like this and it works, you will be replacing the power grid, petrol, oil, amongst other sources, and the big guns, i.e power companies, government etc will be hunting you for destroying there billion pound investments. So I guess altough I still think by just playing with magnets and watching their attraction and repelling from one to the other, in theory it could be donne, by arranging the position of different magnet layouts, if I was able to build something that may work, I would probably enjoy it only for a few days, before I was made redundant to a plywwod box 6 feet under the ground, although I do strongly believe that somme rules are meant to be broken, and getting the uperhand on the big companies is always something that gives me great pleasure, I think i'll put the idea in the mad, dangerous experiments folders and leave it there for a few years, when hopefully it will be achieved by somme electrical guru, and it then becomes possible.
Sorry if I offended anyone, it just seems something so amazing could be donne which could replace alot of digging into the ground and extracting usefull natural resources for a huge profit a thing of the past, and with magnets from what I have read they in theory could outlast however built this machine by 3 to 4 times.
cheers
super windy |
|
|
|
Capt Slog
Junior Member
United Kingdom
200 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 14:34:55
|
My first post here, I was told about this thread from another board I regularly frequent.
I've posted my comment on You Tube about this amazing magnetic engine, if you've seen it, you'll guess which side of the fence I'm on.
But to illustrate a point, I thought you'd like to see this YouTube vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9knPmka9ik&feature=related
Just imagine the possiblities of this. If nuclear waste was made into cards and this chap could deal them (he'll need a special suit of course, but that's just a minor detail) , all the worlds energy problems could be over.
Even though it LOOKS real, we don't instantly go into raptures and say that its true because we apply a little common sense and experience. A few hundred years ago if we'd been showed that, we'd say he was in league with the devil or somesuch and barbeque the poor bloke. We've grown up a little since then and live in a questioning, scientific civilization.
Why is it then, that from a few seconds of shoddy video, you think that he might have a perpetual motion machine?
|
Edited by - Capt Slog on 09/04/2008 14:35:45 |
|
|
|
Tim L
New Member
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 15:39:07
|
My initial reaction is that this is very likely to be either an intentional hoax or that this inventor is unintentionally fooling themselves. There is a vast amount of consistent experimental information confirming scientific principles all the way back to Newton's Principia, and hundreds of years of evidence won't be overturned easily. A great many people will have to do the same thing independently and reproducibly for it to be taken seriously and not laughed out of court as yet more nuttery.
and yet.....at the back of my mind I still think of Prof Eric Laithwaite (who my father knew and was extremely impressed by) being unable to lift a huge steel gyroscope mounted on a long stick while it was stationary - but then being able to pick it up in one hand and wave it around like a fencing sword once the gyro on the end had been spun up to a few thousand RPM.
Weird things happen and it's a truism that a theory which isn't consistent with proven experimental results isn't worth dick. If it can be reproduced then the theory is wrong, and as a scientist and engineer I say that would be very interesting indeed.
Edited to add; In other words, prove it in a series of properly conducted, independently-audited, verified experiments under controlled conditions, then it will be taken seriously. Otherwise it's in the same league as crystal pyramid healing, build-your-own-UFO, hollow-earth, I-Am-The-Messiah stupidity. |
Edited by - Tim L on 09/04/2008 15:58:29 |
|
|
|
Capt Slog
Junior Member
United Kingdom
200 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:19:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim L
and yet.....at the back of my mind I still think of Prof Eric Laithwaite (who my father knew and was extremely impressed by) being unable to lift a huge steel gyroscope mounted on a long stick while it was stationary - but then being able to pick it up in one hand and wave it around like a fencing sword once the gyro on the end had been spun up to a few thousand RPM.
Yes, I remember seeing that one too, it was Laithwaite's downfall.
If my memory serves me correctly.....
He gave a lecture at the Institute of Physics(?) in which he postulated a machine which used that Gyro principle for power. He claimed that the energy came from nowhere to make it run. It was the only lecture in the history of the instute not to have the transcript published at the time, and left him in some disgrace.
What he failed to realise/measure, was that the energy comes from the slowing down of the flywheel, but this loss was quite small enough to be overlooked.
In the case of the demo, it's relatively easy to explain in gyro theory, and it certainly isn't magic or free power. He dosen't actually wave it around, but it travels in a flat circle around him. The gyro is always trying to fall to hit him on his shins on the end of it's rod (long axle). Because he is turning it around him it reacts to produce lift in a direction at 90 degrees to this motion and so doesn't fall.
Where does the weight go? It doesn't. Its still there, and if the lever (long axle) is shorter it becomes quite apparent, believe me, I've tried it.
I would really love there to be something else that we haven't found yet, and I'm not saying that someone won't have a good idea one day that changes what we think, but I doubt it will be launched in a rubbish video on youtube.
Editted to add.
What!? Crystal pyramid healing doesn't work? [shouts] "Put that trowell down Ethel, I've just found out it's a waste of quartz blocks!"
and when I said tabove "it's relatively easy to explain in gyro theory", I should have also have said "but not by me". |
Edited by - Capt Slog on 09/04/2008 16:39:29 |
|
|
|
Tim L
New Member
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 16:55:15
|
| <Grin> |
|
|
|
Murlin
Starting Member
3 Posts |
|
|
Tim L
New Member
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 20:26:09
|
Murlin
Fine, prove it properly under controlled conditions. Don't just post utube videos. I could make up one shouting that I've made my own UFO and flown to Mars. Few people would be be more fascinated than me if you can prove that over unity is a fact.
The onus is on the claimant to prove their claims.
|
Edited by - Tim L on 09/04/2008 20:35:29 |
|
|
|
gotwind
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
1067 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2008 : 22:00:22
|
Interesting discussion, as expected.
I agree with Tim L, all claims need qualifying (proved) properly under controlled conditions.
As Ghurd said, "I want to believe" as do I.
But this is very doubtful - the laws of physics prove all overunity wrong.
Ben.
|
|
|
|
fcfcfc
Starting Member
1 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2008 : 00:37:22
|
| Hi: I wish people could get beyond this non sense. Stuff like this belongs in a magic show or circus... |
|
|
|
Windstuff
Starting Member
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2008 : 02:48:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotwind
Interesting discussion, as expected.
I agree with Tim L, all claims need qualifying (proved) properly under controlled conditions.
As Ghurd said, "I want to believe" as do I.
But this is very doubtful - the laws of physics prove all overunity wrong.
Ben.
The laws of physics prove we haven't found the physics to make overunity possible... or have we?
It is an interesting subject and I've been known to dabble in the unknown now and then. I've formulated my own theories on the subject as well and have proven them in small devices.
Firstly, an output created as a direct cause of input cannot produce 100% efficiency. Newtons 2nd law. But... an output created as an indirect response to input can be 100% efficient with possible gains. (eLenz Law). This is naturally occuring and can be found in resonance as well as other natural events.
Some treat the "laws of physics" as a completed book when, in reality, we haven't even scratched the surface.
Are we that arrogant to believe we know everything and nothing is left that can be learned?
|
|
|
|
Tim L
New Member
United Kingdom
70 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2008 : 17:00:52
|
Windstuff
Of course not. It would be very disappointing if that were the case, the basis of science is that a theory which doesn't explain the proven facts needs to be revised. Engineers go by the rule book - but often forget that the rule book is written by scientists to whom no explanation is necessarily the whole truth, but merely the best current approximation to explain what has been observed and properly - and I stress reproducibly - proven experimentally.
So prove these claims properly and then people will listen - few of them more intently than me.
Until then, I'll be off exploring Cygnus X-1 in my spaceship telepathically crewed by aliens from the Magellanic Clouds. And i am sure that Industrial Light And Magic would be able to make a utube video about it. |
Edited by - Tim L on 10/04/2008 17:20:51 |
|
|
|
ghurd
Junior Member
USA
337 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2008 : 17:47:55
|
Is that spelled right? "eLenz""?
I can't find it in any of my old text books. 
G- |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Guys check this out - overunity discussion
