Consumercide

This is an email thread, mirrored, with minor (typographical etc.) edits from original that do not change the content.

Hi Allen,

Sorry for the late response as we are extremely busy.Further, I would like to set the record straight on people such as, Ian Bryce of the skeptics, who had a lot to say of something He pretends to know. Ian Bryce, who claims to be the chief scientist of the skeptics and also their Electrical engineer, and also the only Rocket scientist in Australia and as of lately, and an aero-space engineer.

The real story:

We had approached the skeptics as they were advertising a $ 100,000 dollar reward to anyone who could overcome their challenge in Australia. We had the intention of patenting our invention world-wide and our patenting Attorney had advised us that the costs to proceed with it would be in the vicinity of about $ 100,000 Australian dollars.

We decided to approach them in order to take the money from them, by proving our claims in the presence of their club of self professed experts. They had agreed to meet and to challenge our claims. The challenge never did happen, because every time when we had agreed on a time and place to conduct the test, there was a last minute cancellation by them

with nonsensical excuses, again and again, and it was not clear to us as to why.

However, later on we did find out of what the most likely cause not to proceed might have been. Namely, Dick Smith, the owner of an electronic chain store (similar to Radio Shack in the USA) had withdrawn his financial support. Basically, they were too cowardly to put their own monies at risk.

The Ian Bryce story

After we had decided that the skeptics were time wasters, who in my opinion would not have been able to "organize a piss up party in a brewery".

A local business man, who owns a middle size Electrical & Airconditioning business came to our rescue and paid the $100,000 for us.

Further we had an office/workshop on the Cairns Warf and I had been advised that we had to look for other premises as they had decided to demolish the complex.

Once again the same business man came to our rescue and provided us with a working space in his factory.

As it happened, the day after I had shifted out to take up the offer to relocate, which was on a Friday morning. I had put our device in his office for the time being.

That same day sometime later, my partner John had just arrived back from His holidays. He contacted me by phone saying that he had just spoken to Ian Bryce, who, unannounced, had just arrived in town and wanted to see the device. I explained to John that we had to shift it out, and that I had placed our device in the office of Trevor Place, the owner and director of the (helpful) business. However, Trevor had left for Sydney on a business trip and would be back by Sunday night.

When John informed Ian Bryce, he started spitted the dummy, claiming all sorts of things. John then offered Him to show it to Him on Monday morning, but he refused.

End of story

PS:

Trevor Place is prepared to swear on oath in a court that the events as stated above are true and correct.

Further the posting of another untrue story from " Greg Watson ". The story is like this.

I don't know Him and I certainly had never spoken or invited him to do tests for Lutec or anyone else for that matter. I do declare here publicly that:

Greg Watson is a lair. If He wants to challenge me in court, Fine with me.

The other nonsense about taken the monies from MUM AND DADS. All of the monies in the company are from shares. One of our major shareholders is a law firm.

Investors had to bring their own experts to verify our claims before they could invest. The initial share value started at $ 33,000 dollars.

Metering

The input and the output are measured in DC. Consequently, there is no phase shift nor RMS values to be considered.

In previous measurements, where the output had been shown as AC is correct.

Also for the simple reasons that the current and the voltage outputs are both in phase and that the load was purely resistive.

For the ones who cannot comprehend that analogue AC Amp and Voltmeters are calibrated and are equal to the RMS readings of digital meters.

By the way we are also using a Tiepie handy scope with an interface to PC.

This type of oscilloscope has the ability to read 12.5 million samples per second per channel and is used by us to verify our claims to the investor's experts.

Still not happy, too bad.

Overunity vs perpetuated motion.

Overunity as a comparison of electrical input power vs electrical power output.

In airconditioning, overunity is renamed as COP, where the electrical input power Watts value is compared with the heating value re-calculate to Watts

when operated in reverse mode.

Alot of people are getting confused as to what overunity is and presume it to be the same as perpetuated motion.

The favourite claim or statement, for a device to be overunity.

It must be able to run by itself without the input from any other source then

from itself is incorrect.

It should be firstly understood that the amount of power supplied by any generator is depending on the demand for power by its load.

For example;

If the load is a 100 watt. Then a generator will only supply 100 Watts and not 200 Watts or 300 Watts as demanded by the connected load.

Secondly, as in our case when the input is pulsed. It means that the generator must be able to supply the average input power as given times the rate of its ratio in relation to the power output cycle.

Example;

The average input power into the device is, lets say, 100 Watts.

The time ratio of input power  "ON"  - Vs - the Output cycle is equal to [5] or 20%.

The actual input power during the "ON" time is then equal to;

P input power  =  P average  x  ratio

OR

P in  =  P av  x ratio

P in  =  100 Watts  x 5

P in  =   500 Watts.

The continuous output power to its load is equal to lets say 500 Watts.

The input power required during the actual "ON" is then equal to;

The total power input requirement to its system during its "ON" period

would be:

P total in  =  P input pulsed power   +  P supplied continuous power to its

load

P total in  =  500 Watts  +  500 Watts

Or 

P total in  = 1000Watts during the actual "ON" pulse.

The above example clearly establishes overunity but is far away from being

a perpetual device.

Overunity;

If the electrical input power is simultaneous instead of pulsed.

Then perhaps feeding its output back to its input may be possible.

The difference to that is that;

1. -  a simultaneous DC input supply in our device would be firstly an impossibility by design.

2. -  a pulsed electrical DC input as in our device allows all the necessary input power to be fed to its system during a very short time in comparison to its output cycle.

3. -  The AC power output from a device, rectified and filtered, may not be able to supply the required input power plus the require output power as demanded by its load, at the time of the input pulse is required.

Windmills effect or energy transfer ???

Lu Brits

A further, similar response to answer a critic on youtube who asked "why don't you just plug the device into itself":

An overunity device is not necessary a perpetual motion device. If the input was continuous, yes then indeed it would or should be able to run itself. Our input is a DC input pulse for a duration of less then 15% of the continuous AC output cycle and which we rectify to a filtered DC to measure apples for apples so to speak.

Eg: assume that the input is measured at being 500 Watts of DC power (batteries) and the measured output after being rectified to a filtered DC equals 400 Watts continuous DC output power. If further, the ratio of the "ON" period is 15% of a full output cycle.

Then the average input power into the device equals: 500 Watts x 0.15 = 75 Watts.

Consequently the efficiency is the OUTPUT power divided by the INPUT power or: 400 Watts / 75 Watts = 533 %.