I'm presenting this video on YouTube, because of it's controversy which usually makes for good discussion. This technology was originally offered about 25 years ago by Dennis Lee through the name of Better World Technologies. This demonstration video was well done in my view. The main principle behind Lee's claims refer to the laws behind Michael Faraday's principle of induction where magnets are used to create a generator to generate electron flow that can be added back to the grid for use. The same principle behind this technology is the same thing used in wind generators where the wind is used to move the rotors of a motor to produce electron delivery. In a sense you are getting free power, if you allow the wind to make the motor produce electric current for application and use. So Lee's idea is sound.
Even when I was a boy, it was easy to hand turn a small toy motor to light up a small light bulb from the free electron flow it creates when the motor is turned manually. This premise is used with Lee's machine at a much grander scale. So this thing is easy to prove in terms of its practicality. There is nothing wrong with the premise in my experience. However, the magnets do not produce the power but do produce a perpetual motion machine. Gravity too is also used to help create the perpetual motion machine of his motors. In short, the magnets and gravity can be used to create a motor that does turn a shaft and coils of wire to create electron flow. This is old provable science. Like I said, I used to do these demonstrations as a boy using this absolute law. Behind Michael Faraday's principle of induction is the reality that when you pass current through a conductive medium, like a strip of wire, there will be a corresponding magnetic field. The reverse will also create the push of electron flow through the same wire which is where Lee is claiming the idea of free energy delivered back to the system. So, I think the skeptic I reference in the link above, needs to go back to grade school on his write up. (chuckling) I found it a useless skeptical position when I read it, but you can make of it what you will. Also, the skeptic fails to reveal their name which serves to discredit the skeptic claim. While I read the skeptic write up on Dennis Lee's machines, I do not see anything wrong with the premise Mr. Lee is operating from in terms of the science. This still is a 20 year old video you are watching. Also, the skeptic write up is not accusing Mr. Lee of being a fraud either. The skeptic even says so. So do not take the skeptic information as a derogatory statement to Mr. Lee's work and offerings of this technology. I certainly don't. Perhaps, if Mr. Lee were better supported, the weaknesses in the skeptic write up could be sequestered and this technology given a greater chance to be and do what it was intended to be by its creators some 25 years ago. I see it showing great promise which is why I signed up some 21 years ago, in case Dennis and his parties make it all happen one day. I'm offering it for discussion and I think Lee is onto something good with this technology. While solar power is another alternative to reducing our electric bills, this is a great idea as well in my view of the technology.Also, while the skeptic is paranoid about combining God with science, I think that is a weak argument to think that when someone mentions God, they are out for money, as if raising money was now an evil thing because God is mentioned. What a ridiculous statement to make. Most scientists you read about, both past and present, know God exists: The difference between a scientist's view of God, up against religion, differs, because the scientist wants the mystery of God revealed in detail where religion takes everything, not understood, on the basis of faith. All worthwhile projects need backing and all good ideas are from God concerning science anyway in my experience of discovery, even when you study the history of man's sciences. The real merits of any technology lies in the provability and its useful application with repeatable, predictable results. So . . .you make up your own mind.
If anything, I was taught growing up as a boy in the 1960's that science should always glorify God, proving God to be true, not separating science from God. I learned that one in a public school no less, if you can believe it: That was all before they took prayer out of the public schools. God and science should be on the same team in other words: The provability of absolute truth.I'm am an artisan and scientist by background and training with my degrees out of Loyola University of Westchester, California with decades of experience working with engineers over my life time.