Tweet
I wrote everything I wanted to say in a post on overunitymachines.com. I don't intend to convince anyone yet. I have made my contribution to the OVERUNITY dish.
-
-
Mr. Rakarskiy,Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
I commend you on your dedication to your beliefs but unfortunately you are too stubborn to listen to advise and realize flaws in your comprehension and logic, meaning the essence of what you preach is false. Proven by the fact that the motionless overunity generator does not work. The useful output of real power never exceeds the input power. No free energy.
biComment
-
-
From the linked article, you writeOriginally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
I watched this video when it was first released and observed an obvious discrepancy in the connections which invalided the shown data. Even though NASA may have recommended the test instrument, it must be used properly. And the technician in the video, Gene Brown, soon afterwards departed Holcomb employment and publicly admitted the product was a scam which never produced any excess energy."I think these measurements of the conversion capabilities when measured by devices recommended by NASA speak for themselves: https://fb.watch/fMZMcgmLij/
COP = Pout/Pin = 19.86 kW / 2.56 kW = 7.76 (776%)"
Holcomb never allowed an independent test of his product and everyone of his several installations failed to produce energy savings but instead increased the energy usage. Last I heard, Holcomb and wife have disappeared. As they say around here; take the money and run.
bi
Comment
-
I absolutely agree that this is a declaration. But what was measured was rather peak capabilities. This publication contains much more interesting data.
Cutting Energy Bills — And Carbon Footprints — in HALF. | by Holcomb Energy Systems | Medium
Operation of the machine, especially with maintaining frequency, voltage under variable load, is a very complex process. Increasing power is generally problematic in my opinion.
By the way, the US Patent Office has issued a patent for the invention (2022-05-17 Publication of US11336134B2; 2038-07-01Adjusted expiration) application submitted in 2017.
You can sue the patent office, they are probably in cahoots. As for Gene Brown, he claimed and did not prove different things.
---------------------------------------------
I have developed a very simple and clear topology. Anyone with hands and brains can test it by inserting a DC motor armature into a stator with a three-phase winding and rotating the contact brushes. The magnetic poles of the armature will rotate without rotating the armature core inserted into the stator. We get generation. To build a real model, design solutions are already needed. It will be difficult to scale, but it becomes possible to make a low-power model, for example, to replace a car generator. I described the entire evolution of how this happens, what should be avoided and what points to rely on, even calculated the 1500 W / 12 V option, about 100 W of excitation costs.
I do not urge you to believe me, I have done my part, the rest is only for the decision of the one who strives for this or is waiting for someone to make him happy.
Motionless ALTERNATOR / Нерухомий АЛЬТЕРНАТОР / ALTERNADOR estacionario | Patreon
RESULTS and PLANS 2025 | PatreonLast edited by Rakarskiy; Today, 10:11 AM.Comment
-
For those interested in understanding this video, read https://www.jmag-international.com/engineers_diary/021/Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
engineers_diary_021a (1).jpgComment
-
Mr. Rakarskiy ,Originally posted by Rakarskiy View Post
I have studied those bar charts and they are manipulating and misrepresenting data. In the real world installations the energy cost increases when Holcomb's device is used. Every time.
As far as your experiment (replace a car generator), several people with hands and brains have conducted such and it fails to produce O.U. or free energy. It simply behaved as transformer.
bi
Comment
Comment