[witsend (OP)]

Guys - not sure what the readership will be to this thread.  But I just want to detail a few things.  I had a demo that developed anomalous heat signatures on a resistive load.  Crashed through the unity barrier and exprimentally evident.  Couldn't get a single academic to attend a demonstration of the circuit.  So I took it to industry.  5 public companies accredited the results.  One of the 5 offered our local university a bursary award to take the study further.  Offer was declined and the claim to have exceeded unity - continued to be ignored by our learned and revered.  MTN Sciencentre asked for the demo to show it to an international group of scientists at a conference.  Not one person from the conference attended that 5 day demo.  Tried to get it published in a reviewed magazine.  Could only get it into a technical journal.  Tried again 6 years later and was rejected without review by IET.  Accepted for review at the IEEE but rejected by reviewers on consensus with the added comment that it may not be represented.

I posted on the naked science forum and was hounded by several contributors who went to some trouble to describe my delusions.  I was invited and joined a second forum whose contributors tried to replicate the experiment.  Couple were successful.  We went to the trouble to write a paper and I posted a link on the previous thread in this forum to advise the thread contributors.  Not one person has commented on the submitted paper, the evidence of the full replicated experiment, the significance of the result, nor the possible outcome of the submission.  This, notwithstanding the extraordinary outcry that any such claim could ever be taken seriously or even be half way correct.

So here we have a forum and a thread, apparently designated to 'new theories' where - having posted a new theory I'm hounded out of the house, and when the results or replication are positive - not one comment for or against that open source replication effort.  Extraordinary.  It speaks to the kind of contributor here who is only, apparently, inclined to victimise any contributor who dare, in good faith, present a seminally new idea.  Not good, guys.  Not good at all.  Plenty to say before replication.  Now nothing?  Is it only required that initiating contributors acknowledge that they were wrong?  Are the attackers appropriate in ignoring the evidence?  And why is no-one that interested.  These tests turn classical physics on its head?  Why this extraordinary lack of interest?  I'm intrigued.  It seems that 'new ideas' thread is a misnomer - designed to subject the unsuspecting to a full on attack from mainstream bigots who reflect academic bigotry with the added flair for discouraging original thought.   [] [] []

[witsend (OP)]

And let me name some of those contributors.  Sophiecentaur was the most vocal.  Jerrgg another.  Then there was Vern.  And Rosie?  Such malicious comments.  Bored Chemist?  What do you all say now that it's been replicated.  Is this still further evidence of my delusions?

[Bored chemist]

"What do you all say now that it's been replicated."
Please provide evidence supporting this assertion.
In any event it has nothing to do with the authority of science. If it turns out that you are right and we are wrong then science still wins.
I look forward to your demonstration of the breach of the law of conservation of energy. If you win a Nobel for this I will send you my real name so you can take the piss during your acceptance speech. It will be a small price to pay for the end of all possible eeergy crises.

However, you should remember my first post in this matter; until you feed the input from the output and take away the battery you don't have an overunity device and your claim is false. In that case you are bringing my name and others into disrepute without cause. If I were using my real name here that would be libel.

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Bored chemitst

I am entirely satified that there are no nobel prizes in the offing.  The replicated test paper is in the posted link.  It may not be there for long as the IEEE may ask us to withdraw it so check it out while you can.  And no, I do not anticipate an acceptance speech, sadly and I really don't want to 'take the piss'. I'm just so angry that I spent so long on this forum fighting a lonely corner - when all that I repeatedly asked is that someone would try and replicate.  Just look back at what was written here.  Such decided antagonistic arrogance.  Not appropriate to good science let alone to the mission statements here. 

But regarding OU claims - I do this with utmost hesitation - but it does seem to be repeatedly evident.  We even reference it in the paper.  The heat anomalies are only evident in conjunction with a distinctive harmonic.  It seems to be part of the resonant pattern.  Lose the harmonic and the battery loses it's charge.  But that harmonic is mostly there - which keeps the battery pretty well charged.  On these last tests Fuzzy (the experimenter) is losing microwatts for at least 8 watts in heat dissipated.  And the numbers get better and better.  If you want to check out the thread it's at energeticforum.com/renewable-energy 

But I'm just ranting.  I got short shrift here and faught a really lonely corner for a long time.  Very disheartening Bored chemist.  A little more curiosity, courtesy and tolerance - and there wouldn't be all that anger.  Vindication is only sweet without all that bitter after taste.  As it is - it just makes me furious to remember what I went through.  And it's hardly a tribute to how a thread should be conducted.  And I'm not that keen on finding out your name.  I'd hate to be a target for anyone with a litigious appetite.

EDIT Sorry I forgot to post the link.  Herewith


http://www.scribd.com/doc/23455916/Open-Source-Evaluation-of-Power-Transients-Generated-to-Improve-Performance-Coefficient-of-Resistive-Heating-Systems

edit correction microvolts to microwatts.

[witsend (OP)]

By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity.  My analysis is that it is evident when the dissipated energy is evident without a loss to the supply.  My thesis requires the primary current flow to come from a battery.  Can't change this.  You guys keep saying that I should replace the battery with a capacitor.  It wont' work when the battery needs to remain the primary current flow source - and then it needs to resonate with the resistor.  I gave you this analogy before.  It's like saying 'I see you've got arms.  But can you fly?'  I'm hoping that someone here will try and understand the model which calls for a redefinition of the properties of current.  And no electric circuit - in terms of that model - can operate as a closed system. 

I hope this point is now understood.  It's exhausting trying to cover the same points over and over.  I do not hold to clsssical explanations regarding current flow.  If I did I would not be able to challenge their energy constraints.

[witsend (OP)]

By the way.  If science is to advance then they should ALWAYS be prepared to look at experimental evidence.  For some reason which I simply cannot understand - they saw fit to ignore the experimental evidence in support of this claim.  That's hardly scientific.  Still no guarantee that they'll pass the paper on for review or that it will be accepted for publication. But this time, unlike previous, they'll have the public to answer to as the technolegy has been widely circulated on the internet the hope being that the public will also want some accountability for continued rejection.  So.  Mainstream science has already eroded its authority by ignoring experimental evidence in the first instance.  More to come, if they only review under public requirement which I suspect will be the case.  And they can only salvage their authority by denying these claims.  The problem here is that they'll need to refute the efficiency of the Tektronix measuring equipment that was used - and the multiple claims that are now evident throughout the internet.  Was surprised to see the extent of interest here.

[Vern]

I have looked around and followed where you've been. Just be happy if you feel that you have something that works. There is plenty of room to increase the efficiency of electronic circuits.

When you claim, "over unity" you turn everybody off. It doesn't happen. You should instead claim, "greatest efficiency ever" and you might stir some interest.

[Mr. Scientist]

I have looked around and followed where you've been. Just be happy if you feel that you have something that works. There is plenty of room to increase the efficiency of electronic circuits.

When you claim, "over unity" you turn everybody off. It doesn't happen. You should instead claim, "greatest efficiency ever" and you might stir some interest.

Very true

[witsend (OP)]

Hi Vern.  Not sure that 'over unity' does not happen.  We've got COP>4 at a conservative reckoning and 3 tests where there was zero delivery from the battery.  It's the 'just does not happen' bit that gets me down.  How do you justify that in the light of the results we're getting.  And why should I want to change the facts simply to make the experimental results more appealing.  Surely the evidence should stand on its own?

[Bored chemist]

Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.

[witsend (OP)]

Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.

LOL  Bored chemist.  I'd forgotten how tedious you are.  Give me your definition of OU preferably as it accords to some accredited source and I'll see what I can do to explain things here.

[witsend (OP)]

Also - you and Vern are clearly mainstream scientists with mainstream training?  It's amusing to see typical mainstream reaction.  Vern pretends he sees nothing ananomalous in a co-efficient of performance in excess of 1.  He also makes a determined effort to ignore the results in that paper that show zero discharge from the supply.  He needs to skip past the 'mesh current' analysis that not only show signature waveforms that are anamolous but they also defy Kirchhoff's Law.  Then he makes no reference to his multiple posts on multiple threads where he dismisses the possibility of the circuit producing COP greater anything at all.  And all such comments made with that dismissive arrogant certainty that comes with a mainstream mindset indulging in mainstream bigotry.

Then we have you Bored chemist.  You read the paper - clearly have little if any idea as to what is bing presented - you pretend to know best - try to advise us as to how we should do waveform analysis and power integration analysis which clearly is not part of your training skills - then you take a stab at a comment - that best implies insufficiencies in the paper - and then you post this 'YAWN' for public consumption.

Nice.  Really nice.  An appropriate reaction from the archaic mindset.  I'm still battling to find constructive input from contributors on this thread.  Thus far I see nothing but sad attempts at assumed superiority.  Where is the genuine and appropriate surprise and interest.  Must one upturn known paradigms just for you guys to explain that you knew this all along?  How curious.  Why then did you not endorse my previous claim - while there were still no replications? 

EDIT - BenV - I apologise for this vitriolic thread.  But I'd remind you that no-one came to my rescue - and I posted on this forum in good faith that there was some real and genuine interest in new science and new theories.  If there is no real interest why this forum topic?  Or is it that the contributors - historically - were only those who used us poor victims as fodder for their egos?  Perhaps this can now change?  Perhaps there are those readers who are more constructive if less contributive?  Just wish I knew. I'm glad that Sophicentaur is not as active. 

[Vern]

It has been awhile since I was accused of being a mainstream physicist. [] But I have to own up to mainstream training.

[witsend (OP)]

It has been awhile since I was accused of being a mainstream physicist. [] But I have to own up to mainstream training.

LOL Vern.  I was expecting you to put up a fight here.  I thought I was sparring and find that I'm only shadow boxing?

[Vern]

I can't convince you of anything. I can't find common ground from which to build a foundation.

[PhysBang]

Look, it's really easy to tell if anyone who claims to have an over unity device is crazy or not. If someone claims to have an over unity device and that person is not a billionaire then that person is crazy.

[witsend (OP)]

Look, it's really easy to tell if anyone who claims to have an over unity device is crazy or not. If someone claims to have an over unity device and that person is not a billionaire then that person is crazy.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you PhysBang.  But this is no longer my claim.  It's getting replicated all over the place.  Did you even read the first post here?  It points out how impossible it is to bring this to mainstream - through the simple convenience of the entire academic world refusing to look at the experiment.  So tell me how one attracts funds for research without academic sanction - unless one wants to face a court case for defrauding the public.  And then - what can one do when, for example, the IET don't even forward a paper for review.  Or when the IEEE advise me that I may not resubmit a paper on this topic?

We've defied that instruction - and have represented a paper.  It's available for view on the link below.  We now want to see if there's any curiosity in mainstream, outside of academia - that may want to see either the test or the paper - or even both. Check out the progress.  It's on a thread in the energetic forum - on alternate energy. And there's enough proof to fill a decent library.

But if you, like mainstream, refuse to read the paper or look at the evidence - then my question is this.  Which side of this argument is lunatic?  I would have thought science is progressed by experimental evidence.  Not by a blind adherence to some man made limitation on the transfer of energy.  The more so as no-one actually knows what energy is.  They only know how to measure it.

[BenV]

I think his point may be that it could be considered crazy to develop a free energy device, and not capitalize on it!

[nixietube]

The only free energy device I have seen is a wire link across an electricity meter.

[Bored chemist]

Is it just me or is this "By the way - let's get to a definition of over unity." a cop out?
There is only one definition and nobody has met it.
As I have said repeatedly, if it's really over unity then you can get it to power itself.
So, I'm still waiting for you to do that.

LOL  Bored chemist.  I'd forgotten how tedious you are.  Give me your definition of OU preferably as it accords to some accredited source and I'll see what I can do to explain things here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
Not the greatest authority in the world but not a bad one.


And BTW re.
"Then we have you Bored chemist.  You read the paper - clearly have little if any idea as to what is bing presented - you pretend to know best - try to advise us as to how we should do waveform analysis and power integration analysis which clearly is not part of your training skills - then you take a stab at a comment - that best implies insufficiencies in the paper - and then you post this 'YAWN' for public consumption.

Nice.  Really nice.  An appropriate reaction from the archaic mindset.  I'm still battling to find constructive input from contributors on this thread.  Thus far I see nothing but sad attempts at assumed superiority. "

Did you understand my post?
You may not be using the right sort of meter so your results are suspect.
Rather than actually checking on this you tell me that I have a mainstream mindset. Fair enough, it is mainstream to point out errors.
That's science for you.
Checked the crest factor yet?