A general perspective for scientific explanation of almost all overunity devices

[WilbyInebriated]

ted.com... ever follow the money? you know, cui bono?

the 4th largest offender in pollution, general electric, is the biggest funder of ted.com... actually it's pretty interesting to see who is on that 'list'...

[DrKCostas]

I wonder why none undertakes to write some  decent articles in wikipedia about overunity devices. Even the article on HHO referrers to Brown (original term HHO=Brown gas) as a fraudster when claiming standard properties of the HHO flame that may produce extra energy. Unfortunately or not the policy of Wikipedia is not to seek for the truth, as this may be impossible, but to keep a neutral position. So if there are objections to conventional thinkers, that rush in to accusing that all about overunity devices are fallacies and frauds, wikipedia is obliged to present the opposite opinion too, based on existing links.

[exnihiloest]

My research proves that almost all overunity devices draw their extra energy from the potential energy of the local gravitational field.
...

There is not one working OU device therefore a theory for a not observed phenomenon is not a theory but a SF fantasy.

[exnihiloest]

... the policy of Wikipedia is not to seek for the truth
...

Yes it is and fortunately. People writing in Wikipedia try to be objective, and it is the reason why there is no article considering OU as a fact.

[DrKCostas]

This is a reply to the remark of exnihiloest:
So if you believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds, and that no overunity device exists what on earth are you doing in a site like this? And you appear also as a Sr Member with many stars!. Very strange...... You are trying to do what here? Persuade everybody that the site  must not exist? I know better than you. I am not fool to believe in the existence of devices that create energy from zero. But I am smart enough to know that some people call overunity some devices that the user provided energy is less that the utilizable output energy, and that physical reality provides somehow the rest in a way that is not obvious, and especially in a way that escapes the  standard academic concepts and theories. If all the energy exchanges were to be included such devices might have an efficiency well below 60% (and not  over 100%) And obviously such devices that are genuine and real are also worth mentioning in Wikipedia.  Academic science is trying to do its best, but if all were 100% as they formulate there would not be evolution in science.  There were times that the physical  laws were that heavier bodies fall faster, that earth is flat, that nothing heavier  than air could fly, that matter is infinitely divisible and atoms is shear fiction.  It is ignorance and arrogance to try to use the energy conservation law and laws of thermodynamics (that are obviously correct laws) in order to suppress genuine and very valuable inventions that appear as overunity devices, simply because it is very difficult or almost impossible with the present scientific concepts to have a complete energy accounting of the phenomenon. I know of course that there is a majority of devices called overunity than they do not work. But not all of them. I compare such absolute claims of yours  with the arrogance and ignorance of all those that were creating physical proofs that nothing heavier than air can fly. I assume also that if in ancient Rome someone was presenting a radio , and a receiving of voice of thousand of miles away, hundreds of people like you would rush to prove that this is physically impossible (sound cannot travel that fast and in such a large distance etc, etc) So do not try to create the wrong impressions, you have fallen to the wrong scientist, and the wrong site.