The Fundemental Laws Of Over Unity (group effort)

[hoptoad]

TK's 3 Laws of OU:

1. All electrical OU devices must use at least one battery.

This has been shown empirically many times, and while it may not exactly be a fundamental "law" of OU, it has never been proven false, in thousands and thousands of experiments, just like the 2LoT.

2. The amount of OU that you get from an electrical OU device is directly related to the number of colored clipleads in the device, and inversely related to the cost of the test equipment used.

Again, this is an empirically-derived "law" so it might not be fundamental, but thousands of examples exist to support it.

3.  A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable, and "PER" never indicates a division operation.

This is also sometimes known as Ainslie's Law, and proper application of it is sure to produce OU in just about any electrical device you can imagine.

4. Don't forget the inverse law of credibility, whereby the less qualified and less understanding the claimant of OU is/has, the more credible his/her OU claim will be.

5. Also, don't forget to apply the  power factor of 10 to the claimants credibility , IF THEY WRITE ALL THEIR POSTS IN BIG CAPS.

Cheers

[accelator]

so i ever hear if some machine isnt  use any battery is that true

[Ghost]

I think cavitation may be overunity but would be difficult to prove or use because it is centered around heat. It would be interesting to see a patent/invention that used cavitation as a motor force.  Perhaps the Clem engine did this or Schauberger or the original Keely Motor.
I tried to see the original Keely Motor at the Franklin Institute last year but was informed it was taken off public display.
There was a cavitation device that made instant steam by an old German inventor (Schaefer?) but it was not a motor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjGSXKSLpfY

http://opensourceenergy.net/index.php?topic=10.0

http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cavitation_Heaters

http://www.overunity.com/356/hydrosonic-pump

[tinman]

There need not be any law's for an overunity device,because it never has and never will exist.
An overunity device is said to produce more energy than it consume's,and this can never happen-we all know this.
Energy can be niether created nor destroyed,but only transformed from one form to another. So to have an OU device,we would have to throw this law out the window.There are some law's that we believe could be changed,but i think this law will stand. To claim to have an OU device simply means that we dont yet know where the extra energy is comeing from,and it has to come from some where, as it cannot be created. I guess this is where the term ! exotic energy device! would come into play,or a free energy device. Even a self runner would be possable,but it would still require an input power source equal or greater than the output.

I think maybe the first law of OU would be to to remove OU altogether,as it just cant be done.
Rename overunity to something that can actualy be achieved. Saying you have an overunity device is like saying your recharging or desulphating a battery with the backEMF. Although most might understand what you mean,it is still an incorrect term-when you actualy mean the flyback or kickback from an inductor.
So unless some one works out how to create energy, then overunity is just an incorrect term.

[Liberty]

There need not be any law's for an overunity device,because it never has and never will exist.
An overunity device is said to produce more energy than it consume's,and this can never happen-we all know this.
Energy can be niether created nor destroyed,but only transformed from one form to another. So to have an OU device,we would have to throw this law out the window.There are some law's that we believe could be changed,but i think this law will stand. To claim to have an OU device simply means that we dont yet know where the extra energy is comeing from,and it has to come from some where, as it cannot be created. I guess this is where the term ! exotic energy device! would come into play,or a free energy device. Even a self runner would be possable,but it would still require an input power source equal or greater than the output.

I think maybe the first law of OU would be to to remove OU altogether,as it just cant be done.
Rename overunity to something that can actualy be achieved. Saying you have an overunity device is like saying your recharging or desulphating a battery with the backEMF. Although most might understand what you mean,it is still an incorrect term-when you actualy mean the flyback or kickback from an inductor.
So unless some one works out how to create energy, then overunity is just an incorrect term.

It is not necessary to "create energy".  It is more likely that energy that already exists, but is not used or perceived, known, or understood to be available, could be made to be more available by increasing efficiency.