0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
And if I'm asking people to get involved - while it may be 'half fledged' it would be a shame to let it just die. I haven't the interest or the abilities to progress it. But surely there are others out there who could? It's not a frivolous claim. It's not difficult to disprove. And as Jerry pointed out - it's got impressive accreditors.
Sorry to post so many consecutive posts - but JerryGG38 - we do use V^2/r analysis. We measure the voltage across the shunt. I gave up on using that analysis on the load resistor as everyone immediately said it was wrong. They couldn't argue wattage related to temperature.
Jerrygg38 - I patented it and then allowed it to lapse - to ensure that no-one could get royalties, including me. That means, apparently, that it's been put in the public domain and precludes anyone from patenting. I did this deliberately because I thought that would encourage people to apply it. But I think I shot myself in the foot because it actually just makes people sceptical. But to your question - NO ONE is making money out of this.The tests were exhaustive. They were done over a 4 year period ending about 6 years ago. Then I just gave up. Can you believe it that academics wont even attend a demonstration? But it nagged at me - the more so as energy is now such a critical issue. And then, I love my physics and I couldn't entirely give that up - any more I'm sure than you could.That's when I decided to try and publish. I sort of thought reviewers would help me polish up the paper to make it acceptable. But the IET wouldn't even forward the paper for review. I thought that was the pits. So then my daughter in law found me this forum. And - yet again - I'm going through the same process. But anyone who wants can do anything they want with this technology. It's available. My contribution to the global energy crisis. And with my love. I have absolutely no interest in progressing this. I'm only interested in the field model.
Vern, your romantic idea of new Science being discovered by a 'primitive' (in the artistic sense) is not supported by evidence in history. Monkeys and typewriters never get past the occasional intelligent looking word - never a whole sentencewrihfoennnnnf!
And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms.
jerrygg38; if you read the patent you will see that it did not mention anything about over-unity. It was simply a design patent. There was no new or useful product claimed. So, it is an interesting thing; maybe fun to play with, but we all knew from the beginning that there was no possible way to generate any useful benefit from it. Still, I do not want to discourage thinking into alternative areas of science. I know that the breakthrough out of our current doldrums will come from such thinking. And, who knows, it may come from someone illiterate to the established norms. That is one of the reasons I have such a keen interest in alternative notions about the nature of the natural laws.
j38The best way to get involved with patents is to work for a large organisation which wants a serious financial stake in an invention. They will get the best advice and the patent will be well written. It will only be taken up by the organisation if they recognise its worth i.e if it has commercial worth.In a decent firm you will get some recognition and your name on the patent.Doing it on your own is a big risk but, of course, there are sometimes, huge rewards.
Conservatism (small c) is essential or Science would be dissipating itself up blind alleys all the time.
Basically, I'm with you Vern.
What I read was the Abstract which specifies"Counter Electromotive force enables overunity results in electric systems."