I HAVE ACHIEVED OVERUNITY

[Schpankme]

... Perhaps he is really looking for something that works.

Here's the perfect switch for your device (see pic) - "It's only offensive when he's turned on!"

- Schpankme

[IronHead]

I am absolutely discussed at what OU.com has become! 

[Bessler007]

Hello watt soup,

Could you kindly explain your reason for objecting to any specific "spewed crap" in view of this piece of hypocritical crap you've just "spewed"?

I do understand questioning your hypocrisy might be seen as "a big shot question" and that "you don't owe me (schmuck? lol) any explanation.  My big shot question is "why are you such a hypocrite?"

I might offer an answer.  You assume you have the right to be what you object in others.  You think  you have more rights than those you attack..  Walk on, dude.  Don't get too much of that water behind your ears.


Bessler007
Cmdr, Black Helicopter Squadron
mib HQ

Good call on @BSer007. Add that to what he just spewed out to Erfinder on The Tesla Project thread, which is totally unacceptable, and I would agree this guy is scheduled to be shifted out of here at warp 10. He only spews craps, asks big shot questions and never gives his own answers as if we owe the shmuck. I SAY GET HIM OFF THE BOARD.

wattsup
mib Terminator

[Goldsphere]

Noblefuse,
One of my first posts I jumped to a conclusion which was very unscientific of me, I'm sorry for that and what I said.
As you can see from subsequent posts by others, the frustration that rises in me from this forum.
You have obviously spent a lot of time on this subject and are serious about what you are doing.
If you are still reading, there are some questions that need answering.
First of all, how did you measure overunity?
Second, does the spacing of the electrodes affect the output?
Thirdly, what is the output? Excess heat, gamma radiation, H+O ?
I have looked through your PDF several times now, but it seems somewhat hypothetical to me, I work with
real machines so can understand the experiment much better than the theory on how it works.
I am in a real position to replicate this if what you say makes more sense.
Regards
GS

To others,
It's a shame that 5 pages of this topic is probably only really 1 because of all the personal garbage that people post.
It's a shame this forum doesn't have more rules such as no double (triple) posting and no off the topic remarks.
It's a shame a whole heap of banning doesn't occur for rule breakers.
Never thought I'd be the one to say that, but it really works well for other forums, and it makes people civil and focused.
just my 2c
GS

[gaby de wilde]

I just don't see what is so vulnerable about investors.

Investment banking is a well known and well established kind of usury

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/usury

Perhaps it's more funny reading it in the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

In the article INTEREST we have reserved the question of the lawfulness of taking interest on money lent; we have here to consider first, usury as condemned by all honest men.

Plato (Laws, v. 742) and Aristotle (Politics, I, x,xi) considered interest as contrary to the nature of things;

Aristophanes expressed his disapproval of it, in the "Clouds" (1283 sqq.);

Cato condemned it (see Cicero, "De officiis, II, xxv), comparing it to homicide, as also did Seneca (De beneficiis, VII, x) and Plutarch in his treatise against incurring debts.

So much for Greek and Roman writers, who, it is true, knew little of economic science.

Aristotle disapproved of the money trader's profit; and the ruinous rates at which money was lent explain his severity. On the other hand, the Roman and Greek laws while considering the mutuum, or loan for consumption, as a contract gratuitous in principle, allowed a clause, stipulating for the payment of interest, to be added to the bond.

The Law of the Twelve Tables allowed only unciarium fenus, probably one-twelfth of the capital, or 8.33 per cent. A plebiscitum, lex Ganucia, 412 a.u.c. went so far as to forbid all interest whatever, but, at a later period, the Roman law allowed interest at 1 per cent monthly, or 12 per cent per annum.

Justinian laid down as a general rule that this maximum should be reduced by half (L. 26, I, c. De usuris, IV, 32).

Chaldea allowed interest on loans (cf. Law of Hammurabi, 48 sqq.).

No absolute prohibition can be found in the Old Testament;  at most, Exod., xxii, 25, and Deut., xxiii, 19, 20, forbid the taking of interest by one Jew from another.

In the Christian era, the New Testament is silent on the subject; the passage in St. Luke (vi, 34, 35), which some persons interpret as a condemnation of interest, is only an exhortation to general and disinterested benevolence.

A certain number of authors, among them Benedict XIV (De synodo diocesana, X., iv, n. 6), believed in the existence of a Patristic tradition which regarded the prohibitory passages of Holy Scripture as of universal application.

Examination of the texts, however, leads us to the following conclusions: Until the fourth century all that can be inferred from the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers is that it is contrary to mercy and humanity to demand interest from a poor and needy man.

amen