The truth about "overunity".

[HopeForHumanity]

I am the best free energy man in the world! Bow to me now! Give me money because I am better than you! I am so cool! I am the best of the best! Everyone else is wrong!

LOL!!

[wattsup]

@HopeForHumanity

You forget the 1 800 number.

[Navi-gator]

Just for giggles, (and im sure im wrong as you will all prove) I googled Dr. Richard Olenick and only found references to one gift 4 power.

Um, well....uh....I dont think this bodes to well for mr. Dante.

Also, how come so many people are comming out of the wood work to "credit" mr dantes work that have never posted before.....

Seriously, if you really have the science part done, you are protected by copywrite law. SO WHERE IS THE PROOOOOOOF!

PUT UP, OR SHUT UP!!!

Lets stop all this nonesense!

If you have the awnser, I suspect a pattent # exists.
Under law, you are already protected by copywrite.
So......Unless you have proof of concept, documentation, video, analysis, etc.... DONT POST ANYMORE.

You are wasting our time and energy.

AND, even if you have the awnser and you are looking to make a huge profit, im sure well see it on the market place soon, so no need to post in these forums anymore unless you have something to share.

Less blah blah blah
more cold hard numbers (and concepts, and science)

This is not a literature contest

Dantes response...

Answer to ?armagdnO?.  Reply 61.

Sorry your so disgusted with what we say, how we say it, and what we are or are not doing to satisfy you.

Before you can tell us what you want, answer the question:,  prove by scientific simple science terms that over-unity exists.

I say no, and prove my ?over-efficiency?.  I?ve written my proof, in some 3000 words, so anyone can understand it,  and will be placing it on our web-site, soon.  It tells EXACTLY how many energy systems I use, what they EXACTLY ARE, and what they accomplish, and I give away no secrets in the process.  The reason I can do this, is because I am right, and use a combination of Old Science and my New Science in its completion.   

In one can do this with ?OVER-UNITY?,  great, but I still say over-unity doesn?t exist, except in the minds of those who want it to exist.  It really sounds good, has sounded good for centuries, but doesn?t exist in reality.

You say yes, but have provided nothing but frustrated words on your part to get us off this site, because you are to busy with other things.  WHAT?  If you cannot answer a simple question, then how busy are you.

I post because I want to educate.  I post to receive contributions for our charity, ONEGIFT4POWER.   Why do you post, when you haven?t, yourself, discovered anything?

And, about Goggling Dr. Richard  Olenick, this needs no answer, as Dr. Olenick is a Nationally noted physicist.  You?re an idiot for just posting what you did. ?just for giggles?.  I?m sure your fellow posters are not as dumb as this!

AND, one thing most of you and your peers do not know.  The Patent process of 2007, isn?t what you think it was, prior to 1990.  Reason being Global economy economics has watered down our Patent laws, whereas, the World will receive knowledge, faster and more people then can infringe, especially those who cannot be taken to court, like the Chinese, PLUS, it takes MILLIONS and MILLIONS to protect a Patent, especially today, when everyone would rather steal, that come up with their own discoveries, and we have been criticized for even asking for a measly 2 million.

It would be nice, if entities like you, would bone up on what your criticizing about.  This site would have more respected conversation, I think.

[Navi-gator]

Hey! You guys wont believe this!

I have invented a new way to generate energy that is better than all the rest. It actually works using the Heisenberg uncertainty principle! You can prove it to yourself that it works! roll a ball across the floor, now durring its movement, try and pinpoint its location at any given time! YOU CANT! WOW, amazing! This is the first use of the uncertainty principle! Now apply this to Alaskan salmon migration routes! this is the second use of the uncertainty principle!

WHO AMUNG YOU CAN PROVE ME WRONG???

NOBODY HAS YET!

You cant prove me wrong, because you are all dumb
You cant possibly immagine how much responsibility I have on my shoulders.

Maybe you can help me get this amazing technology to the world if you send me some money!

Go ahead and try to prove it wrong! you cant, because I never told you how it works! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH HA HA HA AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA AH

Weak minded baboons,
I will crush you all with my mighty ego and Capitol Letters!
None can stand in the way if my infalible truths, bold faced words and outragious claims!

Uncertainty yes!  You have proved Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and applied it in a mechanism! you are so smart i bow before your greatness!! Now all we got to do is create a certainty principle and apply that to a mechanism. 8^) 

Dantes response...

Answer to ?ring-theo?.  Reply #66.

Your little analogy about rolling a ball across a floor, can be proven false.  First of all, you used a principle of uncertainty.  These principles are as good as CHAOS being used in physics.  They mean nothing and have nothing to contribute, but to those like yourself, you use them as a matter of fact.

If your trying to mock me, so be it, but your example is dumb, at best.  You provide no input energy numbers, no time of travel, no weight of the ball,  no coefficients of friction, etc., etc., and no output energy numbers.  You provided no conversion or development numbers, where they exist, etc., etc..

If all this was supplied, instead of just a few words to mock people with, you would find that NO ENERGY is gained, or even developed, THAT CAN BE USED TO PERFORM WORK, and that is the ONLY developed energy that has any use.  No one states that energy isn?t developed in many situations.

Every second of every minute, energy is being developed on the face of the Planet, thousands of ways, but if it cannot be harnessed, extracted, stored, then transmitted to perform useful work, what good is it.

It?s as worthless as your scenario.

[Navi-gator]

If you read the report, he states it requires 7450 Watts to power the 5000 Watt generator, so there is your efficiency right there.

I think you should reread the report, Ted Carnes 1/2/05, due to the fact you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend what was being explained. It has made me seriously question the statement you made about "tutoring people who put there feet in their mouth", based on your last statement you could use some of that tutoring.

This is the relevant part here for your reference. This is where I got the data from. Check it yourself, it's all there.

So, 7450 watts in, 5000 watts out without the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=0.67:1

Connect device, 4800 watts in, 5000 watts out with the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=1.042:1

So if I have failed to understand the numbers and how they are being used, please explain it. What exactly did I miss and what is not correct?

The bolded part was not included in your initial statement regarding the efficiency and therefore was very misleading.

Then you ignore the last sentence of that paragraph in the report which states in 1964 he intentionally showed only a little over 100% efficiency to accomplish something appearently never before done.

The report goes on to explain that the efficiency is limited only by the number of objects in motion, everytime you add another set the efficiency increases.

Dantes response... I think maybe he is referring to me as the newbie

To ?newbie? Reply # 67

The report Ted Carnes wrote on 1/2/05, separates the first Power Plant built in 1964, from the first one being re-constructed NOW.  It may be a little confusing, because he used the term ?first?, twice.  In the 1964 first, he stated the numbers correctly, as I only wanted to have an over-efficiency, as this in itself has never been done before, and not since, I will add, and I just wanted to test the commercial waters. (Remember what I am saying,?.no real power and/or energy has ever been developed, in history,  in an ?over-efficiency? device, machine or in my case, especially a  Power Plant.  YES, many have proved a small amount of overage, which they erroneously call ?OVER-UNITY?, but cannot even prove this, with scientific words, naming the energies they use, but no one to date, that I know of, has DEVELOPED And DELIVERED 5000WATTS of electricity,) and his numbers are right, 104% efficiency rating, BUT, I think you glossed over the part before this, the ?first? Power Plant to be re-constructed in 40 odd years, where he states a 50 to 90% under wattage for the same 10HP electric motor, which would, at 50%, give an efficiency rating of some 134%, more than enough for the entire Power Plant to run itself, and if the 90% figure is reached, the efficiency rating would be some 671% efficiency rating, 571 % ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?

And yes, you are partially right about the mechanics I use, as after all, TED CARNES GAVE YOU ALL THIS INFORMATION in the same report your cite, BUT, I OWN NINE OTHERS, that operate entirely different.

My ?DYNALEVER? Power Plant uses a one piece, New Science, simple compound machine, and THIS has never been accomplished, before, in history.  By definition alone, a compound machine has to use two or more of the basic physics simple machines, but MINE IS ONLY A ONE PIECE, COMPOUND MACHINE.  Period!

What no one seems to understand or admit, I have discovered an entirely NEW SCIENCE, a technology that doesn?t fit into any present field of physics, and once I achieve this, A MULTITUDE of POWER PLANTS, not machines or devices, which are simple things, BUT POWER PLANTS, WHICH CAN PERFORM REAL WORK, and these you will never see or hear about.

Don?t make the mistake that I only own one Power Plant.  The truth is, I have given ONE Power Plant to ONEGIFT4POWER, which I will share the secrets with anyone who accepts my CHALLENGE.

Remember, a challenge requires two entities.  One that makes the challenge and one that accepts it, BUT, when one accepts it, THERE HAS TO BE A DENOMINATOR involved.  In our case, the denominator is 2 million dollars, NOT GIVEN TO THE CHALLENGER, but given to a legal, tax deductible charity, as after all, why should one show anything to anyone, except if it doesn?t work, but that which is real, has been validated and can accomplish real worm, needs a denominator involved.

BUT, all this said, if one doesn?t contribute to any charities, he or she will certainly not contribute to us.

And I am sorry I busted your bubble with such a rude statement, ?over-unity? doesn?t exist.

I didn?t know this was a fantasy site.  For this I apologies, as I thought we were talking to somewhat knowledgeable men, not one?s that read comic books.

I will post no more, since I deal in reality, and not perceived reality, or that which you see as reality.

AND, your analogy about slapping the flywheel, why don?t you bend over and slap yourself right on the ----.   This statement is as dumb as dirt.

You must read my new post, ?The FACTS ? EM5000?, WHEN I HAVE IT POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE.