A general perspective for scientific explanation of almost all overunity devices

[exnihiloest]

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?
...

I'm searching for one, while debunking nonsenses.

Your message is fallacious, because I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds. There are much more absurdities than frauds, i.e. OU claims when there is nothing else than basic phenomena known since the 19th century, or pure theories outside of any facts.
Misinterpretations of experiments due to ignorance, are the most common errors, resulting in OU claims by egocentric people. It gets worse when followers give allegiance to their gurus in despite they have not experimental proofs and often not even verified by themself. They prevent by their noisy gibberish real experimenters from working rationally, exchanging their results, and concluding it is not OU when it is not. It seems to me your method belongs to this kind of counterproductive attitude.
We have not to believe in any thing. We have only to search for unknown phenomena while hoping that one of them will perhaps give us a key to free energy.

[DrKCostas]

Answer2 to exnihiloest
You write in your 1st message
"...There is not one working OU device..."
And when I reply for the obvious unproductive and absolute negativity of your attitude you come to the less absolute   "..I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds.."
It seems to me that you try to make general absolute statements based on indeed many fallacies of innovators, some frauds too, for all devices. You make similar statements too for my work that I doubt you studied at all or understood it, as I admit it requires more than graduate University studies and many years studies of the history of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics to realise what is suggested. It took me more than 7 years working on it. I do not work anymore on that. I have never presented any device of my own, neither I have financial interest on the subject. It is all scientific interest, love of humanity, and now sometimes my hobby.
Making such absolute negative aphorisms for all devices by you  becomes easier due not only the scientific difficulty to account for the energy, but also due to social-military-economic suppression of this direction of evolution. Unfortunately secrecy of some military groups official or not relative to such exotic renewable energy (and not only) has become like cancer tumour to the body of humanity. It is know in history that on the name of “people’s democracy” the soviet political system in the past  jeopardised democracy. The same is with “national security”. On the name of it,  is jeopardised not only national security of  the same country, but of all the humanity as a whole, and valuable evolution is suppressed.  There is a number of “free energy” devices since the 20th century ( I have  analysed 4-5 and spotted a 2-3 more after 2000) that are true and beyond doubt working  if you have enough expertise and IQ  to realise it. In my case it was my job too as I was University Lecturer on relevant subjects, and I was cooperating and consulted by other University Professors too. Some of the devices are recognised my smaller cycles of the Academic World. But not globally for many strong reasons, irrelevant though to the validity of the device. It is naïve to think that just because a new renewable energy device works, and the energy is cheaper than the standard, it would be immediately accepted. Some of the older such devices are waiting for almost a century now. If  I would spent more time I could find a lot more that appeared the last 5 years. It is not easy to find which are the working and which not, if you do not have a scientific theoretical concept of where the renewable energy would come from. E.g. if you know aerodynamics it is not too difficult to figure out which flying devices would most probably fly. But if science had not developed yet the aerodynamics, then it would be very difficult. The easy would be to find a lot of fallacious devices of egotistic or not innovators, some frauds too, and then declare in a general aphorism that everything is as in old times unreliable people  trying to invent the perpetual motion, to deceive financially. This would be easy to believe too by most that surfing the web, as it would require less effort to think about the subject.

[fritznien]

Answer2 to exnihiloest
You write in your 1st message
"...There is not one working OU device..."
And when I reply for the obvious unproductive and absolute negativity of your attitude you come to the less absolute   "..I don't believe that all the devices described in www.overunity.com are frauds.."
It seems to me that you try to make general absolute statements based on indeed many fallacies of innovators, some frauds too, for all devices. You make similar statements too for my work that I doubt you studied at all or understood it, as I admit it requires more than graduate University studies and many years studies of the history of electromagnetism, relativity and quantum mechanics to realise what is suggested. It took me more than 7 years working on it. I do not work anymore on that. I have never presented any device of my own, neither I have financial interest on the subject. It is all scientific interest, love of humanity, and now sometimes my hobby.
Making such absolute negative aphorisms for all devices by you  becomes easier due not only the scientific difficulty to account for the energy, but also due to social-military-economic suppression of this direction of evolution. Unfortunately secrecy of some military groups official or not relative to such exotic renewable energy (and not only) has become like cancer tumour to the body of humanity. It is know in history that on the name of “people’s democracy” the soviet political system in the past  jeopardised democracy. The same is with “national security”. On the name of it,  is jeopardised not only national security of  the same country, but of all the humanity as a whole, and valuable evolution is suppressed.  There is a number of “free energy” devices since the 20th century ( I have  analysed 4-5 and spotted a 2-3 more after 2000) that are true and beyond doubt working  if you have enough expertise and IQ  to realise it. In my case it was my job too as I was University Lecturer on relevant subjects, and I was cooperating and consulted by other University Professors too. Some of the devices are recognised my smaller cycles of the Academic World. But not globally for many strong reasons, irrelevant though to the validity of the device. It is naïve to think that just because a new renewable energy device works, and the energy is cheaper than the standard, it would be immediately accepted. Some of the older such devices are waiting for almost a century now. If  I would spent more time I could find a lot more that appeared the last 5 years. It is not easy to find which are the working and which not, if you do not have a scientific theoretical concept of where the renewable energy would come from. E.g. if you know aerodynamics it is not too difficult to figure out which flying devices would most probably fly. But if science had not developed yet the aerodynamics, then it would be very difficult. The easy would be to find a lot of fallacious devices of egotistic or not innovators, some frauds too, and then declare in a general aphorism that everything is as in old times unreliable people  trying to invent the perpetual motion, to deceive financially. This would be easy to believe too by most that surfing the web, as it would require less effort to think about the subject.

you have 6 to 8 working OU devices!!
please explain why no one has ever claimed strphen's prize and why when ever anyone begs for help to make one run they always get the run around that ends with read and study.
fritznien

[DrKCostas]

Reply to fritznien.

This is easy to understand why : 5 of these overunity devices where invented decades back in the 20th century, and 3 of their inventors are already dead. The first that is still alive is already famous way back before www.overunity.com was created but interested only for fame lectures and science not money. The other one is already produced massively the last 20 years and sold by a large factory in Europe. And from the 3 during the 21st century, one I think is already patented, the other was in a University, that somehow have snob attitudes to sites like www.overunity.com, the other again have their own publicity and finance. They do not evolve all in the same "linked component" of  the web. I did not mentioned them explicitly which is which, as I am not interested to raise a discussion here about their validity. But you can find all of them in my 70 pages work in the links of the 1st post.

[Tempest]

Wow, didn't fritznien just say, all we get is the run around with the read and study crap.