Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[Khwartz]

Hi, many of us confound COP and Overunity, I define Overunity as an apparatus that violate the conservation law (first and second) and can create or destroy energy.
Also efficiency is different from COP, you can have a COP of 10 but an overall efficiency of 20% in the end you will get a COP=2 (10*0.2).
So LENR, solar, RF harnessing are not truly OU device since they doesn't create or cohere energy out of nothing.
Also if possible to create energy, the exact reverse must be true (destruction of energy).

Edit: You know about the Dark energy ? She is OU according to our theory.
Our universe expand, but the energy density for a given volume stay exactly the same, so the overall energy increase perpetually, this an example of a truly overunity system which involve creation of energy.

A COP > 1.0 is overunity: the word itself means what it means,  it is a mathematical quality.

A PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY > 1 would be overunity too.

That is why we should always specify of which overunity we are talking about. (And as concerne (PHYSICAL) EFFICIENCY, one should precise which part of the universe one is taking in account, if one would talk about AN ABSOLUTE EFFICIENCY or RELATIVE EFFICIENCY.)

[MarkE]

Saying an device is "OU" or "overunity" means NOTHING in itselt; that is the basic error.

To be correct, one has to precise what one qualifies of "OU" or "overunity": is that a COP or it that a PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY? !

Then, if it is COP, needs to use the right and "on purpose" definition for industrial view.

Then, if PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY, needs to specify THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SYSTEM, and WHICH PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE WE ALLOW US TO CONSIDER.

Unless these specifications are made, nobody knows of what he or she is talking about.

Pretty much all the considerations you raise have been covered in the discussion with FarmHand.

[MarkE]

Hi, many of us confound COP and Overunity, I define Overunity as an apparatus that violate the conservation law (first and second) and can create or destroy energy.
Also efficiency is different from COP, you can have a COP of 10 but an overall efficiency of 20% in the end you will get a COP=2 (10*0.2).
So LENR, solar, RF harnessing are not truly OU device since they doesn't create or cohere energy out of nothing.
Also if possible to create energy, the exact reverse must be true (destruction of energy).

Edit: You know about the Dark energy ? She is OU according to our theory.
Our universe expand, but the energy density for a given volume stay exactly the same, so the overall energy increase perpetually, this an example of a truly overunity system which involve creation of energy.

I would only qualify that as an apparatus that appears to violate the laws of thermodynamics.  If it were to be a First Law violation, then most probably we wouldn't be recognizing the energy source.  If it were a Second Law violation, then Dr. Sheehan would be correct, and the Second Law: "would be true, except when it isn't".

[centraflow]

MarkE hasn't been here a long time, as his high post count would otherwise suggest.  His registration to this forum was on January 9, of 2014.  However, his high post count (2,149) in such a very short period of time (less than 5 months) is highly reflective of his true nature for being here.  He is trolling this forum, and a bad troll at that, as evidence by the high volume and poor quality of his posts.  You will find in many of his posts a concept called, "argument by assertion".  Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.  He also uses a technique called "psychological projection", which is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Gravock

Spot on, there are too many doing the same thing, love your analysis


regards


Mike

[memoryman]

To centraflow: I did read what you said.
Using an appropriate transmission, you can get almost any torque you want using a non-hydraulic motor. Only mentioning current as input to an electric motor is meaningless.
I watched that video; so similar to most OU motor/generator claims. No meaningful data. Obsession with showing RPMs. Large flywheel. Flickering meters. Lights as a load. No evidence of looping. Here is a question to consider for ALL OU systems: given that every stage in the system can be analysed for efficiency, and total system efficiency is a product of all individual efficiencies, why is the exact point that OU occurs is never identified?
Re: MarkE. I too found him unable/unwilling to just admit that he was wrong. Coming straight out and saying 'I was wrong; I apologise' can be a big deal to others. When (not if) I screw up, I'll say so. Which one of you all is qualified to give an opinion on Mark's mental health?