The truth about "overunity".

[HopeForHumanity]

I'm sorry, but at least Einstein published mathematical formulas to support the word salad he had to offer. All I see here is word salad, no good equations or systems experiments and GOOD things of that nature. 

Maybe you could share some of yours and broaden the discussion. I am also interested in seeing some formulas for measuring over unity. The searches I have done show CoP as a method but only when it involves heat. 

Energy in Watts
Pretty Simple, EnergyOutput > EnergyInput,
MaintnenceEnergy < EnergyOutput - EnergyInput.

There you go, an equation that shows how to get overeffiency with overunity....
(Energy Input Accounts all energy sources converted to watts, including heat and ambient sources).

[Navi-gator]

I guess it makes no sense to combine two words, whose definitions oppose each other, when we can just say over efficiency. Maybe that is why there are some many cynics, its a silly word. Why say "I have a powerplant that has achieved over unity" when the first question will be, "to what level of efficiency?"

Why not just save everybodys time and say "I have a power plant that has achieved an over efficiency of X".

Here are some words I compare to over unity.

Absolutely unsure
Bug-Free code
Clearly ambiguous
Disciplined gluttony
Energetic exhaustion
Fictional truth
Guaranteed forecast
Hurry up and wait
Invisible ink
Justifiable genocide
Luxury compact
Major minority
Numb feeling
Over unity

I think you get the idea.

[HopeForHumanity]

jeez man, it's just a mathematical term for an over balanced energy ratio.

5of4, overunity
3of4, underunity
4of4, unity

[Dingus Mungus]

@h4h
Exactly...
This isn't rocket science or anything.

@NAVI
You obviously had the answer to your own question before you even asked it... Members have repetedly defined the words for you, but you stick to your original assumption that its a oxymoron anyway. 50% of the reason that people believe overunity is a myth is rediculous conversations like this. If more energy is derived from the enviorment, and is extracted from a minimal input: it IS overunity. It IS greater than 1 or greater than the whole, when the ratio is output divided by user input. You either don't want to admit it due to semantics or personal politics, but thats not a tough concept to understand when compared to things like time dialation, or condensate radiative states of matter. Both of which are excepted in physics as fact. I just don't understand how you don't understand...

~Dingus Mungus

[Navi-gator]

You are right it is not rocket science and semantics would most likely be the correct label.

Earlier in this thread I e-mailed Dante your post, and his response I would not post because I felt his comments would have been better directed at others.

Here it is...

From Dante A. Donatelli Jr., Resident Genius, ONEGIFT4POWER:

I give up!   I freely admit defeat. 

It seems that IF I have to respond to a ?DINGUS MUNGUS?, who posted a supposed answer to my text about my believing ?OVER-UNITY? is not possible, and he just rambling on about what I don?t know,  I wondered how many more of these ?DINGUS? idiotic characters I have to put up with. 

I have already been accused of thinking at the wrong level, tried to be educated by a ?DINGUS?, who knows not what he speaks of, and I, being a genius of ?SOLID-POWER? Technology, and a totally new field of Physics, ?SIMPLISTIC PHYSICS?, and the New Science associated with this, and ?PRIMENERGY?, the original 1807-1857 ENERGY, and the ?MECHANIFOIL?, the vertical brother to the AIRFOIL, and the cousin to HYDROFOIL,  I can?t handle this banter from idiots who have never had an original idea in their life, think they know what they are talking about, but afraid to explain it and sign their name to it. 

Yes, I give up!

Therefore, since I have proved I am right, as no one of intelligence could answer one question about THEIR device or whatever, and THEIR energy or whatever, and THEIR ?UNITY? and THEIR ?OVER?  Unity and WHERE IT COMES FROM,  my explanation, which is fact that can be researched, ergo proof, that I am right, STANDS, and I have decided not to post anymore responses to ?DINGUS? remarks, or any other ?DINGUSES? that are out there.

If and when, one of intelligence, who is proud of his response, proud of his device or proud about any other he knows completely about, and not one who just hides behind a computer screen, a ?DINGUS?, (a new name for idiot, that should be placed in a Thesaurus,) and feels I am wrong and he right, and can explain his being right, with proper research listings,  as I have done, and present it as  well as I explained my being right,  I will ONLY responded to emails, with proper names attached, at: answers@onegift4power.org.

As far as ?OVER-UNITY? is concerned.  IT DOESN?T EXIST! 

And, one last remark. 

This phrase has been used for over a century,  ever since Tesla discovered his work. It has been used by those who believe they can locate a free energy of sorts, from the air, or magnetism, or some other place, and build a device, and then, develop, in some way or manner, MORE of what they think they discovered. 

Problem is and has been with me for a long time, that any device that acrtually works, CANNOT PERFORM ANY REAL WORK.  CANNOT DEVLOP ANY REAL POWER.  CANNOT GENERATE FOUR TIMES WHAT THE HOOVER DAM GENERATES.

I am not arguing that their may be some genuine devices out there, I don?t really know and I don?t care, I have my own road to hoe.  What I am concerned with, is that there is NO ?OVER-UNITY?, unless someone can explain it, which no one so far, has!

The total problem with this is that THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN that which they use an INPUT, (assumed to be some kind of known or unknown energy,  the ?UNITY?, (which is assumed to be more of the same, or a different known or unknown energy,)  they cannot explain the ?OVER?, that which goes beyond the unity, and they have no explanation for the  OUTPUT, that which is higher than this unity. 

If they could, like I can explain my ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?, and the known energies I use, and the unknown but tried and true energies not as yet used, I develop, and the fuel and method I use to develop this energy, then to the same energies started with,  there would be a great debate, BUT they cannot, so there isn?t a debate, just a bunch of ?DINGUSES? sitting and spouting their low level thinking remarks.

I know what I own.  I can explain it, anyway one wants to hear it, by my New Science, or why their Old Science allowed me to discover what I have,  and I am prude to discuss it, but with entities that have a back bone, BUT, my main thrust is NOT to educate, but to SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS for ONEGIFT4POWER, the organization that owns or controls all I have discovered and invented.

My thinking is, that when I am believed about things that are not true, these may join us to solve the Worlds problems, that surely exist.

When the time comes, Ted Carnes, who is in the process of writing ?SCIENTIFIC PAPERS? as I am writing this text, AS he is the PhD., and Dr. Olenick, if and when he has time, and both these PhD?s, because they are respected members of the scientific community, WILL IN FACT EXPLAIN and PRESENT the NEW SCIENCE. 

Me, I?m a resident genius, who has been called a nut, a fraud and a scam artists. 

The last one is funny, because I am intelligent enough to think of a better scam, than trying to prove the impossible.

Don?t mean to be mean spirited, and apologies to all who have intelligence, but I only have time for serious people, serious conversation,  serious debate,  and financial contributors to ONEGIFT4POWER, of course.

I can't say that I blame him for his frustrations, I would also be frustrated if I owned the technology he does and has met the resistance he has.