That was unexpected.... (Magnacoaster)

[boguslaw]

He has found how to use positive feedback in his system but beside this it's probably the same concept as in Ecklin, Flynn and others devices.

[broli]

With 4000% overunity it would be child play to close the loop. All the loses due to the extra electronics to do this are negligible. So I'm wondering why he hasn't been talking about this.

[boguslaw]

Maybe the output is cold electricity - no electrons, high frequency ??

[rickoff]

Add another zero, Broli

With 4000% overunity ......

Actually, it's 40,000% OU

12w in, and 4800w out = 400 times increase in power

12w = 100%, 4800w = 400 times 100% = 40,000%

And this is just the smallest device that he offers!

The magnets are said to be enclosed in a 2"x2"x2" cube, and the electronics don't require much space, so the unit could actually be built into a small box. It is the coils, which require a pump, liquid coolant, and a coolant tank to keep them from overheating, which takes up most of the used space in the enclosure, and these could probably be placed in a separate enclosure. Perhaps Willis has rediscovered Tesla's little box that powered his electric car. Willis claims that with 18 watts input, he has been able to get more than 50kw out. That's enough to power an electric vehicle having a 67 hp motor, such as my 2007 Prius.

Wow! Let's hope this is the real thing. It would be nice to see some further validation for the inventor's claims - such as independent test data showing input and output - rather than just a few light bulbs turned on as in his videos. I don't mean to put Richard Willis down - I just think he should offer some further verification. I really do think that what he claims is in fact possible, and that a few others (including Tesla) have been able to do the same thing to one extent or another.

Regards,

Rick

[Chris31]

With that much power amplification he could have easily closed the loop, I wonder why he didnt show that in the demo? or did he?

[broli]

I think we're at a way too early stage to start comparing this with Tesla's tech. Tesla gathered energy from a completely different place using the fact he resonated with the Aether and received energy from it.

I'm really surprised where Richard is heading with this though. Plants? Why? Why not build factories that mass produce small scale ones to power homes and at least free the people. He's clearly not in it for the charity work. By producing plants nothing will change. In his best dreams he would think he'd drive the competition bankrupt untill they all go on his tech. And we the "consumers" will act all ignorant to the fact that the plants that are providing us power are actually getting it for free so to speak. Of course we all know if this is the real deal. Most of us here would make our own and probably build others for people around us "in black".

[rickoff]

A few photos showing the development....

Here's a photo showing the original rotational prototype device:


And here is a later design which eliminated the rotor, and appears to use a yellow board having several disc or cylindrical magnets. This shows an underside view of the black box cover, exposing the electronics:


A more recent model shows the yellow board replaced by two "cubes," as Richard Willis calls them. The cubes contain the magnets. The motor in the foreground is used to pump the liquid coolant to the coils, and a smaller motor is used to operate a timing device, while the coolant tank is to the right, and out of, the picture view:

[boguslaw]

Cooling means probably the same as in Steven Mark TPU - the core is iron and frequency is too high and dissipated as heat. That was first mentioned by Tesla who has given an anwer for that problem also. Instead of extensive cooling iron core may be used even if melted but needs to be enclosed in ceramic coating.

[slayer007]

Here is a long thread about Magnacoaster from overunity where he started his project.

new magnetic motor goes 2000 rpm without load 1000 rpm with load

[rickoff]

Reply to Broli:

I'm really surprised where Richard is heading with this though. Plants? Why? Why not build factories that mass produce small scale ones to power homes and at least free the people.

The Dragons Den deal had nothing to do with the manufacture and production rights for household units. Richard didn't want to sell the manufacturing and distribution rights, but needed money to go into production - hence the Dragon's Den deal. Richard Willis only wanted the 1 million dollar contract for a power plant partership so that the money would finance production of his household power generation systems. He is already setting up a production plant in Ontario to offer three home models ranging between 4.8kw and 14 kw. He talks about this in his latest YouTube video, posted Dec 1, 2008:
YouTube - Video 16.wmv

[boguslaw]

The Dragons Den deal had nothing to do with the manufacture and production rights for household units. Richard didn't want to sell the manufacturing and distribution rights, but needed money to go into production - hence the Dragon's Den deal. Richard Willis only wanted the 1 million dollar contract for a power plant partership so that the money would finance production of his household power generation systems. He is already setting up a production plant in Ontario to offer three home models ranging between 4.8kw and 14 kw. He talks about this in his latest YouTube video, posted Dec 1, 2008:
YouTube - Video 16.wmv

That was a "dead plan" IMHO. Who would pay for building power plant when the money from that will finance project against power plant profits ? Once investor realize that he won't pay Richard bills anymore.

[bart]

blinded by the light

I think he knows very well what he is getting into !He has gotten himself on nat/international tv right! So wether or not he goes with the million or not does it really matter?

[rickoff]

That was a "dead plan" IMHO. Who would pay for building power plant when the money from that will finance project against power plant profits ? Once investor realize that he won't pay Richard bills anymore.

Not necessarily so, and here's why:
The investor already realized that his investment was only in power plant use for electrical distribution, and that the inventor was pursuing other deals for selling small, individual home-use machines. The deal still makes sense to the investor, because it will take decades before the homeowners in his area can purchase and employ enough machines to cut into his profit potential significantly. In the meantime, he can create huge amounts of power very inexpensively, and thus may be able to reduce customer power bills to the point where they might not be interested in individually spending $12,000 for an off-grid system from Magnacoaster. Besides, many people just couldn't afford that investment in the first place. So the investor knows it's a win/win scenario no matter what, and that by greatly reducing his generation costs he will stay in business and make money much longer than competitors who don't go this way.

Rick

[broli]

And that's exactly why it's a dead plan .

That plan is focusing on the future and not on the now. I mean before this month ends someone could have a similar or better energy producing idea. All that "decade" talk instantly goes down the drain. We should live our lives the fullest now not in 10 years.

[rickoff]

Reply to Broli:

And that's exactly why it's a dead plan .

That plan is focusing on the future and not on the now. I mean before this month ends someone could have a similar or better energy producing idea. All that "decade" talk instantly goes down the drain. We should live our lives the fullest now not in 10 years.

It's hardly a "dead plan" for Richard Willis, or for the $1 million investor, and it does focus on a "now" solution for those who can afford it.

As for the rest of us, it might as well be dead unless we do something. Basically, as I see it, we have 4 choices:
1. Buy one of the 3 Magnacoaster home power models now being offered for delivery in February. ($4,200 to $15,000 and 4.8kw to 12kw)
2. Buy some other power generating device that is now available, or soon to be offered.
3. Build your own device and make the best use of it that is possible.
4. Do nothing now, and hope that a cheap and incredibly effective solution will come along soon and be available to everyone for next to nothing.

Any of these may prove in the end to be the "right" decision. After all, as you say, someone else may possibly come up with something better (for producing electric power) than the Richard Willis device in the near future, and may offer it at a lower price. That's the way things go in the real world. So you may spend too much if you choose solution #1 or #2. You also run the risk of wasting too much time and money in pursuing choice #3, and end up with an inferior product. With choice #4, your risk is the greatest one of all, but then so is the reward if it proves to be the right choice.

If, as you say,

we should live our lives the fullest now not in 10 years

then what will you choose? What is the best choice - the right choice - to make NOW? And ten years from now, will you still be happy that you made this choice? That, undeniably, is an important question, unless you don't plan on living that long. If the Willis device is real, and the output is not severely overstated, it would probably be a choice that would not only make you happy today, but also ten years down the road because of the money you would have saved in being off-grid - not to mention the satisfaction of being energy independent. If you can build or buy something better, at a lower investment cost, then of course the Willis device wouldn't be your best choice. I'm not endorsing the Willis device, and I certainly am not suggesting that everyone rush to buy one, but it is certainly worthy of further investigation, based upon the very impressive claims that have been made. The claims may be nonsense, but they may also be real. None of us are in a position to pronounce this as a dead end alternative at this point in time, so let's keep our minds open to all possibilities.

For everyone here, I know the choices will differ, and be dependent on various factors, such as affordability, skills, and knowledge. There are several threads here that offer valuable and viable methods for reducing or eliminating energy costs, and achieving energy independence. The smartest choice will probably be one that does not rely on any singular energy system, but on one which utilizes a variety of renewable energy devices. That, of course, would also be the most expensive way to go, unless you are already well on your way to reaching that goal. Those of us who are not in such a position can stick with choice #4 for a little while longer, perhaps, while we study and compare our options. But, theoretically speaking, suppose that you had to make just one choice and had to make it today, and you knew that your choice would either greatly benefit or greatly detract from your (and your family's) well-being 10 years down the road. What would you choose as your one and only NOW solution?

Anyone?

Best wishes to all in the New Year, and in ten years down the road as well,

Rick