The truth about "overunity".

[Iosh]

I'm willing to read everything coming from Dante A. Donatelli Jr. as long as he doesn't go all "I'm the Messiah, adore me" in his texts like he seems to do everytime.
Otherwise I guess few people will take him seriously, as it keeps happening here.

[HopeForHumanity]

NaviDante,

My name reflects how I have hope for people like you to change your pompous views. You arn't helping anyone by hiding behind navigator and you surly arn't helping anyone by simply explaining over and over again how you are the best, and how you know the secret. So far you have had it completely wrong, just listen to people like Z_P_E and realize what you are fighting so hard over. You can't change a definition, period!

[Navi-gator]

Look NG,

I already explained in plain, simple, and clear terms what overunity means and of course the other related terms such as efficiency at oupower.com.

Yeah, I've been waiting for an answer to the questions I asked.

Your friend can say and believe what he chooses, and so can you.

But some things just can not be twisted from the truth.

First, let me make this clear...there is no such thing as more than 100% efficiency! PERIOD.

Then how would you explain this...

As far as a gain in energy is concerned, I can say that a gain is possible if the velocities of the masses increase and decrease as you claim they do. I find no reason to say any different, as I did view your one kinematic analysis and the mechanics of the design allows the masses to travel faster and slower, all within a constant RPM at input and output. Thus, it seems logical that your device can, in fact, produce a kinetic energy differential. Difference in time tavel seems to be the key, as you stated, and your claim seem to have validity.

Richard P. Olenick  6/6/94
Professor and Chair
Department of Physics
Univ. of Dallas

Here we have a Physics professor claiming Dante has developed kinetic energy, using solid objects and innovative mechanics that harness kinetic energy. The full report along with 10 others can be found on his site.

Why? Because "efficiency" is simply the ratio measurement of how much of something you get out compared to the quantity of something you put in. It is a measurement that is not even expected to ever be greater than 100%. The best you will ever achieve is a 1:1 ratio, or 100%.

You need to come out of that comfort zone and explore reality. The correct term is over-efficiency.

DO NOT CONFUSE EFFICIENCY WITH COP.

The problem with CoP is you remove the heat and it is no longer usable.

Same is true about U=mgh, when you add acceleration the formula no longer applies.

The efficiency of a device or system will affect it's COP, but does not necessarily determine if it has a COP>1 or not.

You know what? Let's just forget about and totaly drop the term "overunity" ok? It only seems to cause confusion. As I said in my post, it is far more intelligent to talk in terms of COP. Simple as that.

So, in summary:
- A device or system can never exhibit more than 100% efficiency
- A device or system can exhibit COPs of anywhere from 0.001:1 to 10^100:1

It's simple...not complicated at all, unless we go out of our way to make it so.

Darren

In summary your post just proves how many different opinions there are about this and all of them including yours are only theory.

[Navi-gator]

NaviDante,

My name reflects how I have hope for people like you to change your pompous views. You arn't helping anyone by hiding behind navigator and you surly arn't helping anyone by simply explaining over and over again how you are the best, and how you know the secret. So far you have had it completely wrong, just listen to people like Z_P_E and realize what you are fighting so hard over. You can't change a definition, period!

I am not fighting anything. I am sharing an opinion, not Dantes, mine.

I happen to believe in what he is doing and see it as a no risk oppurtunity.

How can you be so sure I have it wrong, have you seen his powerplants?

I am only taking the word of two much better known and respected opinions than yours or mine or probably anybody on this board.

They have seen it and say it does what he claims, why is this so hard to understand?

[z_p_e]

NG,

The reason I didn't engage further in answering any of your questions is because a) you put zero effort into composing them, and b) evidently, I've got much better things to spend my time on.