No device can be built, to run any given speed, even if the input is less than the output and be called an over unity device. The speed it was designed to run at, is the unity of that device. If this happens, the output being greater than the input, and no so called governing mechanics were installed to keep it at a given speed, the device would pick up speed, constantly picking up speed, and the unity of that certain device, would be the point that the speed of the mechanics would explode the device, once again, never reaching over unity, but only unity.
Now, if a governor of sorts, say an Electrical Generator that is designed to run at a given speed, no matter how much energy or power is delivered to it, was installed, then the unity of that device would be the speed the electrical generator ran at and the work it accomplished, as the unity it reached.
The amount of electricity each generator develops, is the unity of that specific Power Plant.
A device that simply runs is a useless device, and if it is put to work, the unity is the work it performs.
This is the reason no over unity device has ever been discovered, even though quite a few say they have one. What they have is a toy, using some free energy like magnetism, and because they can get it to run, they call this running, over unity. The problem is, once they attach an electrical generator or some kind of work, as the device cannot develope more magnetism, unless electricity is involved, and this requires a generator of sorts, they can never go over that which they develop as the output, in the form of the work of the generator developing more magnetism.
This we have learned in school ...
tks.
this tread cant help to find.
You must look other "sources" than the conventionals...
Pese
Quote from: pese on August 11, 2007, 03:20:00 PM
This we have learned in sholl ...
tks.
this tread cant help to find.
You must look oter "sources" like conventioals...
Pese
sholl?..tks?... this whole post ???
Exactly what is the ?unity?, ?that the output? is ?over?unity?, that the ?over? is talking about?
Is the unity, energy?
Is the unity, power?
Is the unity, work?
Is their a difference between overunity and over efficiency?
This is a fairly new term, how do you define it?
You arn't thinking on the right level, you are generalizing that overunity meens exceeded mechanical strength. Overunity is the ability for something to generate cop > 1. If you generated it all out of electricity, you would not have a mechanical problem, because their would be no set mechanical strength. 100% efficient meens unity. You say that everything is 100% effecient? No, they are usualy far behind, you are thinking about mechanical exersion being unity because the FORCES are exerting mechanical pressure on the system, not the ENERGY. It takes a bit of thinking to seperate mechanical effeciency from energy effeciency, think about wave types, if you pull something you are exerting a force on the object. If you are spinning something you are exerting a smaller force on the object, and the amount of energy produced would be the same as the energy it took to pull, therefor decreased mechanical pressure and increased energy effeciency. Simmiliar to how mechanics is length, and energy is width, one can far exceed the other. Say the width is 1000watts, and the mechanical strength is 1000pounds, the input was only 10watts, and the mechanical pressure was only 10pounds. Help clear it up? ???
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 12, 2007, 01:43:27 PM
You arn't thinking on the right level, you are generalizing that overunity meens exceeded mechanical strength. Overunity is the ability for something to generate cop > 1. If you generated it all out of electricity, you would not have a mechanical problem, because their would be no set mechanical strength. 100% efficient meens unity. You say that everything is 100% effecient? No, they are usualy far behind, you are thinking about mechanical exersion being unity because the FORCES are exerting mechanical pressure on the system, not the ENERGY. It takes a bit of thinking to seperate mechanical effeciency from energy effeciency, think about wave types, if you pull something you are exerting a force on the object. If you are spinning something you are exerting a smaller force on the object, and the amount of energy produced would be the same as the energy it took to pull, therefor decreased mechanical pressure and increased energy effeciency. Simmiliar to how mechanics is length, and energy is width, one can far exceed the other. Say the width is 1000watts, and the mechanical strength is 1000pounds, the input was only 10watts, and the mechanical pressure was only 10pounds. Help clear it up? ???
I e-mailed Dante Donatelli your response and this was his response...
QuoteDear Sir or Madam:
The person who responded to Navi-gator?s answer about ?OVER-UNITY?/;?OVER-EFFICIENCY?.
I?m sorry, but Navi-gator got a little confused and you may have misunderstood a few points.
Now, to PERSONALLY answer your response.
To correct you: I am not thinking at your level. I am thinking at a higher, but much simpler level. I use facts, not assumptions. I use a New Science technology, which you have never heard about, I ask questions, that cannot be answered by the general understanding of Old Science, which no one has yet answered.
Maybe, when you read the enclosed FULL text, that I personally wrote, you may then be able to answer the questions I pose, and we THEN can get into a higher level discussion.
I am not confused about ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? and ?OVER-UNITY?. Period!
For one thing, ?OVER-UNITY? CANNOT EXIST, unless ENERGY, FORCE, POWER OR WORK, whatever you feel your talking about when you speak of UNITY, the UNITY of WHAT, enters the system from outside the system. PERIOD!
Even in so called free energy devices, ENERGY HAS TO COME INTO THE SYSTEM, FROM OUTSIDE, for the UNITY of the PRIME MOVER, as you refer to, COULD BE 100%, EVEN if run by electricity or magnetism, or what ever new energy you have read about.
The Prime Mover, the electric motor, that which you say is 100% efficient if it uses electricity, CAN ONLY CONVERT a GIVEN AMOUNT OF MECHANICAL ENERGY. Thus, it NEVER CAN DELIVER MORE, AS ITS DESIGN, WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
If MORE COMES OUT OF THE OUTPUT, IT HAS TO BE PUT INTO THE SYSTEM, ANOTHER WAY, THEREFORE, instead of OVER UNITY, you have ADDED ENERGY, POWER, FORCE, or WORK.
NOW, in SOLID-POWER? Technologically designed Power Plants, BOTH the electric motors used and the electric generators used, all are 100% efficient, and neither can deliver more that was designed into them to deliver.
BUT, two things happen in our Power Plants that NEVER HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE, ergo you wouldn't?t know about it, and of course, cannot comment intelligently about this,
#1. The ELECTRIC MOTOR, although 100% efficient when running at top speed, using all the designed wattage, from an electrical source, has the phenomenal ability to use LESS and still deliver the same speed.
This is a fact, an electric motor, of any size, CANNOT DELIVER MORE, but can DELIVER THE SAME SPEED with less electrical energy strength needs, AMPS.
BUT, that said,
#2. Our mechanics which have sets of solid matter objects attached, DEVELOP MORE ENERGY, FORCE ,POWER and/or WORK, in fact objects in motion, under the influences of Basic Laws of Nature, and forces from these, in a given time period, CAN DEVELOP ALL FOUR, and THIS, as well as the small amount of wattage the electric motor is furnishing, (putting out much less torque, or mechanical energy, or foot-pounds, or strength, or force, what ever please you, as all are correct,) DELIVERS WHAT THE FLYWHEEL NEEDS, the SPEED, to DELIVER WHAT THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR NEEDS, to run itself at FULL CAPACITY!
NOW, this is NOT ?OVER-UNITY?, this is ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?, because, no we are not bringing energy, power, force or work, from outside the system, or from anywhere else, as a matter of fact, WE ARE DEVELOPING IT, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SYSTEM. And yes, the system has its own forces, etc., BUT, WHAT WE DEVELOP WITHIN THE SYSTEM, IS FAR AND ABOVE THAT WHICH THE SYSTEM NEEDS.
Now, please read the following TEXT that I wrote, and then, if you have any questions, or answers, please refer to what I wrote, not what you assume from Old Science, or old mechanics, because I SUPERSEDED ALL THESE, as concerns, developing energy, using solid matter objects as a fuel, mechanics, and Classical Mechanics.
This is an old belief and the statement made is incomplete.
Old because I have proved that OVER EFFICIENCY is what can be accomplished, not over unity. And, old because those who use it do not realize that they have never finished the statement.
Their confusion lies in the fact that they stop their explanation with the input versus output, but nothing in between, like what speed the device was designed to run at, or what work the device was designed to accomplish.
Just to say that any device that the input is greater than the output is an over unity device, stops short of completion of the statement and is a false statement, because the device has no unity, so how can one determine what the over unity is.
Yes, it looks good on paper, and even sounds good, but it means nothing unless a speed is determined for the device to run at, or the work to be accomplished is designated.
Our Power Plants do the work of running Electrical Generators, and run at speeds from 75 R.P.M., up to 300 R.P.M., and one runs very slow, and we match the electrical generator with the Power Plant we want designed.
The amount of electricity each generator develops, is the unity of that specific Power Plant.
In our Power Plants, the ONLY reason they run themselves is the phenomena of the Electric Motor, and the fact that both current strength, amps, and current volume, volts both are needed to operate it, the watts used as input and the watts delivered as output and if one or the other is lowered, the watts it needs to operate, is lowered as well, and because we develop energy and power, "ENERPOWER", between the input and output, there is no mechanical back pressure of any sort, (say like an auto, if you load it down it needs more gasoline to run, and if you load it down enough, the engine wouldn't run it,), as we only are dealing with electrical energy in and electrical energy out, and all electrical energy IS DEVELOPED, as it isn't a natural energy, like gasoline, magnetism, solar or any other of the five primary forms of energy.
I realize this is brand new and those who have been dealing with this issue for years cannot accept it, but, if you wish, ask them to expand or complete the statement, "the device who's output is greater than its input, is designed to run at what speed, to perform what work".
Perpetual motion, of the Old Science kind, is impossible because of friction, ergo, if a device was built to put out more energy than it has put in, it would be a Perpetual motion device, and besides this, it would run faster and faster and faster until it exploded, due to the mechanics and the metal they are made out of, cannot take the forces of the speed.
How could any device have a output if there wasn't any work accomplished, as the output is the work of the device.
Their statement makes no sense, but as I stated, they have been stating this for decades, so this is what they believe.
It is the same with the present laws and principles of physics. If one states them often, and for so long, one then believes them and these will not believe they could have gaps in them, as Dr. Olenick has stated I discovered to gain energy and gain horsepower, two impossible scientific things.
Any device that has a low input, of any energy, HAS TO HAVE A WAY TO GAIN MORE of this energy OR OF ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENERGY so as the output could be greater, so their statement then could make sense.
Dante A. Donatelli Jr.
Over unity = More useful output than useful input...
Meaning If I input 1watt of energy and get out 2 watts of energy than I have achieved over unity or a CoP>1. There are several devices that can accomplish this feat in refrence to heat and light, as well as several devices that have whats refered to as infinite CoP. An example of infinite CoP is photovoltaics, the user inputs zero energy and gets 20% of the energy deposited by the enviornment for free. It's usually low efficiency, but high CoP.
You're discussing net efficiency I think... and you will never be more than 100% efficient in that stat. Probably never even 100%... Net efficency will always be effected by losses. Thats why physics can't debate this. You can pull energy from the wheel work of nature just as Tesla predicted. We're still in the phase of finding new sources of energy to tap in to. It's a long and dificult process with many failures, but thats what R&D is all about.
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 12, 2007, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 12, 2007, 01:43:27 PM
You arn't thinking on the right level, you are generalizing that overunity meens exceeded mechanical strength. Overunity is the ability for something to generate cop > 1. If you generated it all out of electricity, you would not have a mechanical problem, because their would be no set mechanical strength. 100% efficient meens unity. You say that everything is 100% effecient? No, they are usualy far behind, you are thinking about mechanical exersion being unity because the FORCES are exerting mechanical pressure on the system, not the ENERGY. It takes a bit of thinking to seperate mechanical effeciency from energy effeciency, think about wave types, if you pull something you are exerting a force on the object. If you are spinning something you are exerting a smaller force on the object, and the amount of energy produced would be the same as the energy it took to pull, therefor decreased mechanical pressure and increased energy effeciency. Simmiliar to how mechanics is length, and energy is width, one can far exceed the other. Say the width is 1000watts, and the mechanical strength is 1000pounds, the input was only 10watts, and the mechanical pressure was only 10pounds. Help clear it up? ???
I e-mailed Dante Donatelli your response and this was his response...
QuoteDear Sir or Madam:
The person who responded to Navi-gator?s answer about ?OVER-UNITY?/;?OVER-EFFICIENCY?.
I?m sorry, but Navi-gator got a little confused and you may have misunderstood a few points.
Now, to PERSONALLY answer your response.
To correct you: I am not thinking at your level. I am thinking at a higher, but much simpler level. I use facts, not assumptions. I use a New Science technology, which you have never heard about, I ask questions, that cannot be answered by the general understanding of Old Science, which no one has yet answered.
Maybe, when you read the enclosed FULL text, that I personally wrote, you may then be able to answer the questions I pose, and we THEN can get into a higher level discussion.
I am not confused about ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? and ?OVER-UNITY?. Period!
For one thing, ?OVER-UNITY? CANNOT EXIST, unless ENERGY, FORCE, POWER OR WORK, whatever you feel your talking about when you speak of UNITY, the UNITY of WHAT, enters the system from outside the system. PERIOD!
Even in so called free energy devices, ENERGY HAS TO COME INTO THE SYSTEM, FROM OUTSIDE, for the UNITY of the PRIME MOVER, as you refer to, COULD BE 100%, EVEN if run by electricity or magnetism, or what ever new energy you have read about.
The Prime Mover, the electric motor, that which you say is 100% efficient if it uses electricity, CAN ONLY CONVERT a GIVEN AMOUNT OF MECHANICAL ENERGY. Thus, it NEVER CAN DELIVER MORE, AS ITS DESIGN, WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
If MORE COMES OUT OF THE OUTPUT, IT HAS TO BE PUT INTO THE SYSTEM, ANOTHER WAY, THEREFORE, instead of OVER UNITY, you have ADDED ENERGY, POWER, FORCE, or WORK.
NOW, in SOLID-POWER? Technologically designed Power Plants, BOTH the electric motors used and the electric generators used, all are 100% efficient, and neither can deliver more that was designed into them to deliver.
BUT, two things happen in our Power Plants that NEVER HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE, ergo you wouldn't?t know about it, and of course, cannot comment intelligently about this,
#1. The ELECTRIC MOTOR, although 100% efficient when running at top speed, using all the designed wattage, from an electrical source, has the phenomenal ability to use LESS and still deliver the same speed.
This is a fact, an electric motor, of any size, CANNOT DELIVER MORE, but can DELIVER THE SAME SPEED with less electrical energy strength needs, AMPS.
BUT, that said,
#2. Our mechanics which have sets of solid matter objects attached, DEVELOP MORE ENERGY, FORCE ,POWER and/or WORK, in fact objects in motion, under the influences of Basic Laws of Nature, and forces from these, in a given time period, CAN DEVELOP ALL FOUR, and THIS, as well as the small amount of wattage the electric motor is furnishing, (putting out much less torque, or mechanical energy, or foot-pounds, or strength, or force, what ever please you, as all are correct,) DELIVERS WHAT THE FLYWHEEL NEEDS, the SPEED, to DELIVER WHAT THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR NEEDS, to run itself at FULL CAPACITY!
NOW, this is NOT ?OVER-UNITY?, this is ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?, because, no we are not bringing energy, power, force or work, from outside the system, or from anywhere else, as a matter of fact, WE ARE DEVELOPING IT, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SYSTEM. And yes, the system has its own forces, etc., BUT, WHAT WE DEVELOP WITHIN THE SYSTEM, IS FAR AND ABOVE THAT WHICH THE SYSTEM NEEDS.
Now, please read the following TEXT that I wrote, and then, if you have any questions, or answers, please refer to what I wrote, not what you assume from Old Science, or old mechanics, because I SUPERSEDED ALL THESE, as concerns, developing energy, using solid matter objects as a fuel, mechanics, and Classical Mechanics.
This is an old belief and the statement made is incomplete.
Old because I have proved that OVER EFFICIENCY is what can be accomplished, not over unity. And, old because those who use it do not realize that they have never finished the statement.
Their confusion lies in the fact that they stop their explanation with the input versus output, but nothing in between, like what speed the device was designed to run at, or what work the device was designed to accomplish.
Just to say that any device that the input is greater than the output is an over unity device, stops short of completion of the statement and is a false statement, because the device has no unity, so how can one determine what the over unity is.
Yes, it looks good on paper, and even sounds good, but it means nothing unless a speed is determined for the device to run at, or the work to be accomplished is designated.
Our Power Plants do the work of running Electrical Generators, and run at speeds from 75 R.P.M., up to 300 R.P.M., and one runs very slow, and we match the electrical generator with the Power Plant we want designed.
The amount of electricity each generator develops, is the unity of that specific Power Plant.
In our Power Plants, the ONLY reason they run themselves is the phenomena of the Electric Motor, and the fact that both current strength, amps, and current volume, volts both are needed to operate it, the watts used as input and the watts delivered as output and if one or the other is lowered, the watts it needs to operate, is lowered as well, and because we develop energy and power, "ENERPOWER", between the input and output, there is no mechanical back pressure of any sort, (say like an auto, if you load it down it needs more gasoline to run, and if you load it down enough, the engine wouldn't run it,), as we only are dealing with electrical energy in and electrical energy out, and all electrical energy IS DEVELOPED, as it isn't a natural energy, like gasoline, magnetism, solar or any other of the five primary forms of energy.
I realize this is brand new and those who have been dealing with this issue for years cannot accept it, but, if you wish, ask them to expand or complete the statement, "the device who's output is greater than its input, is designed to run at what speed, to perform what work".
Perpetual motion, of the Old Science kind, is impossible because of friction, ergo, if a device was built to put out more energy than it has put in, it would be a Perpetual motion device, and besides this, it would run faster and faster and faster until it exploded, due to the mechanics and the metal they are made out of, cannot take the forces of the speed.
How could any device have a output if there wasn't any work accomplished, as the output is the work of the device.
Their statement makes no sense, but as I stated, they have been stating this for decades, so this is what they believe.
It is the same with the present laws and principles of physics. If one states them often, and for so long, one then believes them and these will not believe they could have gaps in them, as Dr. Olenick has stated I discovered to gain energy and gain horsepower, two impossible scientific things.
Any device that has a low input, of any energy, HAS TO HAVE A WAY TO GAIN MORE of this energy OR OF ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENERGY so as the output could be greater, so their statement then could make sense.
Dante A. Donatelli Jr.
What a complete crock of gibberish! Navigator is Dante, I think...where can I buy your machines, Dante?
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 12, 2007, 10:36:58 AM
Exactly what is the ?unity?, ?that the output? is ?over?unity?, that the ?over? is talking about?
Is the unity, energy?
Is the unity, power?
Is the unity, work?
Is their a difference between overunity and over efficiency?
This is a fairly new term, how do you define it?
Define unity. The dictionary is a wealth of information.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 12, 2007, 10:51:44 PM
Over unity = More useful output than useful input...
Meaning If I input 1watt of energy and get out 2 watts of energy than I have achieved over unity or a CoP>1. There are several devices that can accomplish this feat in refrence to heat and light, as well as several devices that have whats refered to as infinite CoP. An example of infinite CoP is photovoltaics, the user inputs zero energy and gets 20% of the energy deposited by the enviornment for free. It's usually low efficiency, but high CoP.
You're discussing net efficiency I think... and you will never be more than 100% efficient in that stat. Probably never even 100%... Net efficency will always be effected by losses. Thats why physics can't debate this. You can pull energy from the wheel work of nature just as Tesla predicted. We're still in the phase of finding new sources of energy to tap in to. It's a long and dificult process with many failures, but thats what R&D is all about.
~Dingus Mungus
Thanks Dingus, that helps although the difference is still not completely clear.
Quote from: Humbugger on August 12, 2007, 10:59:57 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 12, 2007, 10:13:21 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 12, 2007, 01:43:27 PM
You arn't thinking on the right level, you are generalizing that overunity meens exceeded mechanical strength. Overunity is the ability for something to generate cop > 1. If you generated it all out of electricity, you would not have a mechanical problem, because their would be no set mechanical strength. 100% efficient meens unity. You say that everything is 100% effecient? No, they are usualy far behind, you are thinking about mechanical exersion being unity because the FORCES are exerting mechanical pressure on the system, not the ENERGY. It takes a bit of thinking to seperate mechanical effeciency from energy effeciency, think about wave types, if you pull something you are exerting a force on the object. If you are spinning something you are exerting a smaller force on the object, and the amount of energy produced would be the same as the energy it took to pull, therefor decreased mechanical pressure and increased energy effeciency. Simmiliar to how mechanics is length, and energy is width, one can far exceed the other. Say the width is 1000watts, and the mechanical strength is 1000pounds, the input was only 10watts, and the mechanical pressure was only 10pounds. Help clear it up? ???
I e-mailed Dante Donatelli your response and this was his response...
QuoteDear Sir or Madam:
The person who responded to Navi-gator?s answer about ?OVER-UNITY?/;?OVER-EFFICIENCY?.
I?m sorry, but Navi-gator got a little confused and you may have misunderstood a few points.
Now, to PERSONALLY answer your response.
To correct you: I am not thinking at your level. I am thinking at a higher, but much simpler level. I use facts, not assumptions. I use a New Science technology, which you have never heard about, I ask questions, that cannot be answered by the general understanding of Old Science, which no one has yet answered.
Maybe, when you read the enclosed FULL text, that I personally wrote, you may then be able to answer the questions I pose, and we THEN can get into a higher level discussion.
I am not confused about ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? and ?OVER-UNITY?. Period!
For one thing, ?OVER-UNITY? CANNOT EXIST, unless ENERGY, FORCE, POWER OR WORK, whatever you feel your talking about when you speak of UNITY, the UNITY of WHAT, enters the system from outside the system. PERIOD!
Even in so called free energy devices, ENERGY HAS TO COME INTO THE SYSTEM, FROM OUTSIDE, for the UNITY of the PRIME MOVER, as you refer to, COULD BE 100%, EVEN if run by electricity or magnetism, or what ever new energy you have read about.
The Prime Mover, the electric motor, that which you say is 100% efficient if it uses electricity, CAN ONLY CONVERT a GIVEN AMOUNT OF MECHANICAL ENERGY. Thus, it NEVER CAN DELIVER MORE, AS ITS DESIGN, WILL NOT ALLOW IT.
If MORE COMES OUT OF THE OUTPUT, IT HAS TO BE PUT INTO THE SYSTEM, ANOTHER WAY, THEREFORE, instead of OVER UNITY, you have ADDED ENERGY, POWER, FORCE, or WORK.
NOW, in SOLID-POWER? Technologically designed Power Plants, BOTH the electric motors used and the electric generators used, all are 100% efficient, and neither can deliver more that was designed into them to deliver.
BUT, two things happen in our Power Plants that NEVER HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE, ergo you wouldn't?t know about it, and of course, cannot comment intelligently about this,
#1. The ELECTRIC MOTOR, although 100% efficient when running at top speed, using all the designed wattage, from an electrical source, has the phenomenal ability to use LESS and still deliver the same speed.
This is a fact, an electric motor, of any size, CANNOT DELIVER MORE, but can DELIVER THE SAME SPEED with less electrical energy strength needs, AMPS.
BUT, that said,
#2. Our mechanics which have sets of solid matter objects attached, DEVELOP MORE ENERGY, FORCE ,POWER and/or WORK, in fact objects in motion, under the influences of Basic Laws of Nature, and forces from these, in a given time period, CAN DEVELOP ALL FOUR, and THIS, as well as the small amount of wattage the electric motor is furnishing, (putting out much less torque, or mechanical energy, or foot-pounds, or strength, or force, what ever please you, as all are correct,) DELIVERS WHAT THE FLYWHEEL NEEDS, the SPEED, to DELIVER WHAT THE ELECTRICAL GENERATOR NEEDS, to run itself at FULL CAPACITY!
NOW, this is NOT ?OVER-UNITY?, this is ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?, because, no we are not bringing energy, power, force or work, from outside the system, or from anywhere else, as a matter of fact, WE ARE DEVELOPING IT, INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SYSTEM. And yes, the system has its own forces, etc., BUT, WHAT WE DEVELOP WITHIN THE SYSTEM, IS FAR AND ABOVE THAT WHICH THE SYSTEM NEEDS.
Now, please read the following TEXT that I wrote, and then, if you have any questions, or answers, please refer to what I wrote, not what you assume from Old Science, or old mechanics, because I SUPERSEDED ALL THESE, as concerns, developing energy, using solid matter objects as a fuel, mechanics, and Classical Mechanics.
This is an old belief and the statement made is incomplete.
Old because I have proved that OVER EFFICIENCY is what can be accomplished, not over unity. And, old because those who use it do not realize that they have never finished the statement.
Their confusion lies in the fact that they stop their explanation with the input versus output, but nothing in between, like what speed the device was designed to run at, or what work the device was designed to accomplish.
Just to say that any device that the input is greater than the output is an over unity device, stops short of completion of the statement and is a false statement, because the device has no unity, so how can one determine what the over unity is.
Yes, it looks good on paper, and even sounds good, but it means nothing unless a speed is determined for the device to run at, or the work to be accomplished is designated.
Our Power Plants do the work of running Electrical Generators, and run at speeds from 75 R.P.M., up to 300 R.P.M., and one runs very slow, and we match the electrical generator with the Power Plant we want designed.
The amount of electricity each generator develops, is the unity of that specific Power Plant.
In our Power Plants, the ONLY reason they run themselves is the phenomena of the Electric Motor, and the fact that both current strength, amps, and current volume, volts both are needed to operate it, the watts used as input and the watts delivered as output and if one or the other is lowered, the watts it needs to operate, is lowered as well, and because we develop energy and power, "ENERPOWER", between the input and output, there is no mechanical back pressure of any sort, (say like an auto, if you load it down it needs more gasoline to run, and if you load it down enough, the engine wouldn't run it,), as we only are dealing with electrical energy in and electrical energy out, and all electrical energy IS DEVELOPED, as it isn't a natural energy, like gasoline, magnetism, solar or any other of the five primary forms of energy.
I realize this is brand new and those who have been dealing with this issue for years cannot accept it, but, if you wish, ask them to expand or complete the statement, "the device who's output is greater than its input, is designed to run at what speed, to perform what work".
Perpetual motion, of the Old Science kind, is impossible because of friction, ergo, if a device was built to put out more energy than it has put in, it would be a Perpetual motion device, and besides this, it would run faster and faster and faster until it exploded, due to the mechanics and the metal they are made out of, cannot take the forces of the speed.
How could any device have a output if there wasn't any work accomplished, as the output is the work of the device.
Their statement makes no sense, but as I stated, they have been stating this for decades, so this is what they believe.
It is the same with the present laws and principles of physics. If one states them often, and for so long, one then believes them and these will not believe they could have gaps in them, as Dr. Olenick has stated I discovered to gain energy and gain horsepower, two impossible scientific things.
Any device that has a low input, of any energy, HAS TO HAVE A WAY TO GAIN MORE of this energy OR OF ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENERGY so as the output could be greater, so their statement then could make sense.
Dante A. Donatelli Jr.
What a complete crock of gibberish! Navigator is Dante, I think...where can I buy your machines, Dante?
No, Dante lives in Texas, I live in Florida. I have talked to him at length via e-mail, but only once on the phone.
Inventors and genius types are usually quite eccentric and often a little over the top. Einstein was thought to be a lunatic and I beleive it was Galileo who was hung for his beliefs. I wouldn't judge the book by its cover.
Quote from: ring_theory on August 13, 2007, 09:51:53 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 12, 2007, 10:36:58 AM
Exactly what is the ?unity?, ?that the output? is ?over?unity?, that the ?over? is talking about?
Is the unity, energy?
Is the unity, power?
Is the unity, work?
Is their a difference between overunity and over efficiency?
This is a fairly new term, how do you define it?
Define unity. The dictionary is a wealth of information.
The definition of unity "100% of something" is partly the conflict IMO.
Nowhere does it show usage in regards to a machine nor is it found in MacGraw hills encyclopedia of technology.
Please explain how something can be over 100% of itself?
Semantics...
If the output power is greater than 100% of the users input power than its OU.
Lets say I use 10watts in a heater, and get out 9watts of heat...
Thats a CoP of 0.9
Lets say I use 10watts in another heater and get out 20watts of heat...
Thats a CoP of 2
Any CoP > 1 means you've extracted energy from another source besides the users input energy. Now a lot of the external energy could be wasted inefficently, but the useful CoP can exceed 100% of its input.
NOW...
Users input + enviormental input > total output in all cases.
We don't calculate for enviornmental input because its free...
Like solar and turbine technology, it can't deplete a resource, but it can use energy.
~Dingus Mungus
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 13, 2007, 10:17:59 PM
Quote from: ring_theory on August 13, 2007, 09:51:53 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 12, 2007, 10:36:58 AM
Exactly what is the ?unity?, ?that the output? is ?over?unity?, that the ?over? is talking about?
Is the unity, energy?
Is the unity, power?
Is the unity, work?
Is their a difference between overunity and over efficiency?
This is a fairly new term, how do you define it?
Define unity. The dictionary is a wealth of information.
The definition of unity "100% of something" is partly the conflict IMO.
Nowhere does it show usage in regards to a machine nor is it found in MacGraw hills encyclopedia of technology.
Please explain how something can be over 100% of itself?
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unity&x=49&y=15
Over 1...
aka Overunity...
Cop (greater than) 1...
@ D.M.
Hello Dingus.
that was a great ask. how can an machinery or something give more OUT that it used.
only if something work additionalley IN this devices
and ADD the power.
as
ambient temperature
solare rays
some "moving parts -inside the machine- . I think on BESSLER now.
enz
---------------
you are (little bit wrong with.) because not comple..
D.M. (copied)
Lets say I use 10watts in a heater, and get out 9watts of heat...
Thats a CoP of 0.9
--------
If it heat (water) -only-9Watts .. ,
1 watt ware lost to air (amnient) in any way it give NO losts !!
all losts (example , gasoline motor) will be tourned
into "heat" , are NO losts , AND can also used
------------
If some "overuniy maschines , com out over 100% ,
than its is not true , because in ANY ay , this additional power comes from "Anywhere2 , and
its only to open the mind and the eye--
example
frigidaire : from abient
solar heat from abient
solar electricity : from ambient (rays)
Perpetuum Mobiles. From additionalyy insid working "moving" parts
Telsa Car , Coler, Hendershot Hubbard and more
from added "univers power".
And so on..
any Overunity commes from ADDITIONALLY Powers
that can USED
On other ways : It give NO LOSTs
Any "Losts" will turned to Heat (or other power)
--------------
So i hope to learn more here.
All days i can find "some more" .. here and other places.
G.Pese
CoP only accounts for useful recovered energy. Any energy lost to the enviornment is not lost (as in destroyed), but it leaves the system and can not be included in CoP. Any useful energy lost to the enviornment applies in net efficiency.
Example:
Solar cells are roughly 20% efficient, so 80% of the suns photons that contact the Si surface are reflected out to the ambient energy pool and refered to as lost energy. Thats net efficiency, but the CoP of a solar cell is infinite.
Overunity is a refrence to CoP as energy can not be created from nothing. It must be tapped from the ambient. There are so many different moving streams of energy to tap, that there is no need for creating energy or violating physics. Thats the bit of confusion that seperates us from regular science. They assume perpetual motion means no input, but really it means no user input.
~Dingus
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 14, 2007, 02:51:48 AM
CoP only accounts for useful recovered energy. Any energy lost to the enviornment is not lost (as in destroyed), but it leaves the system and can not be included in CoP. Any useful energy lost to the enviornment applies in net efficiency.
Example:
Solar cells are roughly 20% efficient, so 80% of the suns photons that contact the Si surface are reflected out to the ambient energy pool and refered to as lost energy. Thats net efficiency, but the CoP of a solar cell is infinite.
Overunity is a refrence to CoP as energy can not be created from nothing. It must be tapped from the ambient. There are so many different moving streams of energy to tap, that there is no need for creating energy or violating physics. Thats the bit of confusion that seperates us from regular science. They assume perpetual motion means no input, but really it means no user input.
~Dingus
Jes so is it , but the econony is better . mor tan 20 % will also turned at heat (an will not reflected) .
The dark color thake the infrared (heat) rays.
BUT no ONE think to "take this additional 20% Energy to store directly in watertank.
So the efficent of Solar Cell arrangements ca be done more economical in use
GP
WHAT A STUPID DISCUSSION!
Is any of this really relevant? You are all talking about the same thing from different vantage points.
YOU ARE ALL CORRECT!
If you have an electric motor and a solar cell, you could take the stance that it is OU if you dont take into accout the sun (say if you didnt know what the sun or light was). ie a system outside of equilibrium...because we deliberately left out one half....the sun
OR you could say it is not OU and take into accout the sun, ie a closed system
We consider some machines OU because we do not understand ZPE or whatever name you want to give the phenomenon, which is essentially the "battery" Of course if you leave the power source out it will look like OU!
What others are saying is that once you include ZPE or the battery in the picture its not OU.
SIMPLE
Dont over complicate and waste time.
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 14, 2007, 12:37:06 PM
WHAT A STUPID DISCUSSION!
Is any of this really relevant? You are all talking about the same thing from different vantage points.
YOU ARE ALL CORRECT!
If you have an electric motor and a solar cell, you could take the stance that it is OU if you dont take into accout the sun (say if you didnt know what the sun or light was). ie a system outside of equilibrium...because we deliberately left out one half....the sun
OR you could say it is not OU and take into accout the sun, ie a closed system
We consider some machines OU because we do not understand ZPE or whatever name you want to give the phenomenon, which is essentially the "battery" Of course if you leave the power source out it will look like OU!
What others are saying is that once you include ZPE or the battery in the picture its not OU.
SIMPLE
Dont over complicate and waste time.
Thanks, I'm glad you have it all figured out, although in a few years I believe your answer will only be an elementary generalization.
[quote author=HopeForHumanity link=topic=3004.msg44109#msg44109 date=1186940607
No, Dante lives in Texas, I live in Florida. I have talked to him at length via e-mail, but only once on the phone.
Inventors and genius types are usually quite eccentric and often a little over the top. Einstein was thought to be a lunatic and I beleive it was Galileo who was hung for his beliefs. I wouldn't judge the book by its cover.
[/quote]
So, you think - because you are a lunatic - that you are a genius? haha
I'm pretty sure NAV has gotten his answer already... Lets not let this thread turn in to name calling and semantics. Also I think h4h's point was that eccentric or "crazy" inventors tend to be very sane in retrospect. They're percieved as 'crazy' because people do not yet understand. He's not talking about himself or even a member of this board... You implied that.
@PESE
If the heat was used to warm water, than useful energy is extracted and your efficiency goes up. So lets say the water keeps 50% of the solar heat. Then you'd have 20% turned to useful electricity, and 40% turned to useful heat. Still only 60% efficient, but with a CoP of infinity. Once you have a intended use for the energy its counted twards "useful output", CoP, and net efficiency.
~Dingus Mungus
I'm sorry, but at least Einstein published mathematical formulas to support the word salad he had to offer. All I see here is word salad, no good equations or systems experiments and GOOD things of that nature. ;)
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 15, 2007, 12:09:20 AM
I'm pretty sure NAV has gotten his answer already... Lets not let this thread turn in to name calling and semantics. Also I think h4h's point was that eccentric or "crazy" inventors tend to be very sane in retrospect. They're percieved as 'crazy' because people do not yet understand. He's not talking about himself or even a member of this board... You implied that.
@PESE
If the heat was used to warm water, than useful energy is extracted and your efficiency goes up. So lets say the water keeps 50% of the solar heat. Then you'd have 20% turned to useful electricity, and 40% turned to useful heat. Still only 60% efficient, but with a CoP of infinity. Once you have a intended use for the energy its counted twards "useful output", CoP, and net efficiency.
~Dingus Mungus
Yes .
This is for all , ti understand better ....
that a lotof energy will go "unused" out in the ambient !
This are no LOST !.
This are only unused energies
that going out , from your "unusing head"
because industrues are interested to
take your "unused" money from your pocket.
Gustav Pese
see also www.leebell.net
to collect somes eneries from ambient
(Member: -fleebell- inthis forum)
...
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 15, 2007, 12:15:27 AM
I'm sorry, but at least Einstein published mathematical formulas to support the word salad he had to offer. All I see here is word salad, no good equations or systems experiments and GOOD things of that nature. ;)
Maybe you could share some of yours and broaden the discussion. I am also interested in seeing some formulas for measuring over unity. The searches I have done show CoP as a method but only when it involves heat. ???
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 15, 2007, 04:09:12 PM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 15, 2007, 12:15:27 AM
I'm sorry, but at least Einstein published mathematical formulas to support the word salad he had to offer. All I see here is word salad, no good equations or systems experiments and GOOD things of that nature. ;)
Maybe you could share some of yours and broaden the discussion. I am also interested in seeing some formulas for measuring over unity. The searches I have done show CoP as a method but only when it involves heat. ???
Energy in Watts
Pretty Simple, EnergyOutput > EnergyInput,
MaintnenceEnergy < EnergyOutput - EnergyInput.
There you go, an equation that shows how to get overeffiency with overunity....
(Energy Input Accounts all energy sources converted to watts, including heat and ambient sources).
I guess it makes no sense to combine two words, whose definitions oppose each other, when we can just say over efficiency. Maybe that is why there are some many cynics, its a silly word. Why say "I have a powerplant that has achieved over unity" when the first question will be, "to what level of efficiency?"
Why not just save everybodys time and say "I have a power plant that has achieved an over efficiency of X".
Here are some words I compare to over unity.
Absolutely unsure
Bug-Free code
Clearly ambiguous
Disciplined gluttony
Energetic exhaustion
Fictional truth
Guaranteed forecast
Hurry up and wait
Invisible ink
Justifiable genocide
Luxury compact
Major minority
Numb feeling
Over unity
I think you get the idea.
jeez man, it's just a mathematical term for an over balanced energy ratio.
5of4, overunity
3of4, underunity
4of4, unity
:)
@h4h
Exactly...
This isn't rocket science or anything.
@NAVI
You obviously had the answer to your own question before you even asked it... Members have repetedly defined the words for you, but you stick to your original assumption that its a oxymoron anyway. 50% of the reason that people believe overunity is a myth is rediculous conversations like this. If more energy is derived from the enviorment, and is extracted from a minimal input: it IS overunity. It IS greater than 1 or greater than the whole, when the ratio is output divided by user input. You either don't want to admit it due to semantics or personal politics, but thats not a tough concept to understand when compared to things like time dialation, or condensate radiative states of matter. Both of which are excepted in physics as fact. I just don't understand how you don't understand...
~Dingus Mungus
You are right it is not rocket science and semantics would most likely be the correct label.
Earlier in this thread I e-mailed Dante your post, and his response I would not post because I felt his comments would have been better directed at others.
Here it is...
From Dante A. Donatelli Jr., Resident Genius, ONEGIFT4POWER:
I give up! I freely admit defeat.
It seems that IF I have to respond to a ?DINGUS MUNGUS?, who posted a supposed answer to my text about my believing ?OVER-UNITY? is not possible, and he just rambling on about what I don?t know, I wondered how many more of these ?DINGUS? idiotic characters I have to put up with.
I have already been accused of thinking at the wrong level, tried to be educated by a ?DINGUS?, who knows not what he speaks of, and I, being a genius of ?SOLID-POWER? Technology, and a totally new field of Physics, ?SIMPLISTIC PHYSICS?, and the New Science associated with this, and ?PRIMENERGY?, the original 1807-1857 ENERGY, and the ?MECHANIFOIL?, the vertical brother to the AIRFOIL, and the cousin to HYDROFOIL, I can?t handle this banter from idiots who have never had an original idea in their life, think they know what they are talking about, but afraid to explain it and sign their name to it.
Yes, I give up!
Therefore, since I have proved I am right, as no one of intelligence could answer one question about THEIR device or whatever, and THEIR energy or whatever, and THEIR ?UNITY? and THEIR ?OVER? Unity and WHERE IT COMES FROM, my explanation, which is fact that can be researched, ergo proof, that I am right, STANDS, and I have decided not to post anymore responses to ?DINGUS? remarks, or any other ?DINGUSES? that are out there.
If and when, one of intelligence, who is proud of his response, proud of his device or proud about any other he knows completely about, and not one who just hides behind a computer screen, a ?DINGUS?, (a new name for idiot, that should be placed in a Thesaurus,) and feels I am wrong and he right, and can explain his being right, with proper research listings, as I have done, and present it as well as I explained my being right, I will ONLY responded to emails, with proper names attached, at: answers@onegift4power.org.
As far as ?OVER-UNITY? is concerned. IT DOESN?T EXIST!
And, one last remark.
This phrase has been used for over a century, ever since Tesla discovered his work. It has been used by those who believe they can locate a free energy of sorts, from the air, or magnetism, or some other place, and build a device, and then, develop, in some way or manner, MORE of what they think they discovered.
Problem is and has been with me for a long time, that any device that acrtually works, CANNOT PERFORM ANY REAL WORK. CANNOT DEVLOP ANY REAL POWER. CANNOT GENERATE FOUR TIMES WHAT THE HOOVER DAM GENERATES.
I am not arguing that their may be some genuine devices out there, I don?t really know and I don?t care, I have my own road to hoe. What I am concerned with, is that there is NO ?OVER-UNITY?, unless someone can explain it, which no one so far, has!
The total problem with this is that THEY CANNOT EXPLAIN that which they use an INPUT, (assumed to be some kind of known or unknown energy, the ?UNITY?, (which is assumed to be more of the same, or a different known or unknown energy,) they cannot explain the ?OVER?, that which goes beyond the unity, and they have no explanation for the OUTPUT, that which is higher than this unity.
If they could, like I can explain my ?OVER-EFFICIENCY?, and the known energies I use, and the unknown but tried and true energies not as yet used, I develop, and the fuel and method I use to develop this energy, then to the same energies started with, there would be a great debate, BUT they cannot, so there isn?t a debate, just a bunch of ?DINGUSES? sitting and spouting their low level thinking remarks.
I know what I own. I can explain it, anyway one wants to hear it, by my New Science, or why their Old Science allowed me to discover what I have, and I am prude to discuss it, but with entities that have a back bone, BUT, my main thrust is NOT to educate, but to SOLICIT CONTRIBUTIONS for ONEGIFT4POWER, the organization that owns or controls all I have discovered and invented.
My thinking is, that when I am believed about things that are not true, these may join us to solve the Worlds problems, that surely exist.
When the time comes, Ted Carnes, who is in the process of writing ?SCIENTIFIC PAPERS? as I am writing this text, AS he is the PhD., and Dr. Olenick, if and when he has time, and both these PhD?s, because they are respected members of the scientific community, WILL IN FACT EXPLAIN and PRESENT the NEW SCIENCE.
Me, I?m a resident genius, who has been called a nut, a fraud and a scam artists.
The last one is funny, because I am intelligent enough to think of a better scam, than trying to prove the impossible.
Don?t mean to be mean spirited, and apologies to all who have intelligence, but I only have time for serious people, serious conversation, serious debate, and financial contributors to ONEGIFT4POWER, of course.
I can't say that I blame him for his frustrations, I would also be frustrated if I owned the technology he does and has met the resistance he has. :(
What does this Dante guy have, besides a text overriden website that looks very much like any other scam on the net and a crave for money?
$2,000,000 to get a look at his invention? Come on.
What does Dante have? My guess would be:
1) Bipolar Disorder
2) Delusions of Grandeur
3) A shill or an alter-ego called Navigator
4) Very little else
Wow,
This is ridiculous! "There is no such thing as over unity". Well first buddy, OVERUNITY IS JUST AN ENERGY MEASURMENT, so your entire "quest" has just been totaly brought down because you don't understand the damn definition. And holy crap, 2,000,000mil? Maybe if I was total retard! And guess what "navigator"? If he is so concerned and typed that giant ego booster, why doesn't he take his @$$ to the forum. Brilliant people like TESLA don't do what you do! You completely miss understood "level", as did I say higher or lower? NO! So just shut your mouth and stop perpetuating this ridiculous thread. And I mean what person would put this thread on OVERUNITY.com?
Sorry If I was harsh, but please realize how ridiculous this is, people should not have a conclusion until they do the experiments and post ALL the data. Ok? :)
Quote from: Iosh on August 17, 2007, 05:41:20 PM
What does this Dante guy have, besides a text overriden website that looks very much like any other scam on the net and a crave for money?
$2,000,000 to get a look at his invention? Come on.
Dante?s answer to "JOSH":
Sorry the truth hurts. By just you answering this, in the negative way you have, you have proved to be a, what I call, a ?DINGUS?!
YES, my website is overridden with words, as our next UPDATE addresses this, BUT, have you EVER READ ANY OF THESE WORDS, ANYWHERE ELSE?
Does this bother you? Do you just hate other MEN, making rash claims, AND SAYING THEY CAN BACK THEM UP!
By the way: Why didn?t you state anything about my experts WORDS?
Could it be that MAYBE, I KNOW WHO I AM, KNOW WHAT I OWN, and KNOW WHAT IT CAN DO FOR THE WORLD, but more importantly, APPLY MY REAL NAME TO IT, AND HAVE BEEN PROVEN RIGHT, BY EXPERTS?
I have no problems with this. WHY? Because when I am challenged, I WILL JAMB MORE KNOWLEDGE DOWN THE THROATS OF THE ONE?S CHALLENGING ME, that they can handle.
I do not say this in a mean way, JUST MAKING A POINT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND!
At least, sir, in all due respect, I do not, and have never in my life did, HIDE FROM WHAT I STATE!
YOU, HOWEVER DO! WHY?
And, don?t be angry at me, BE ANGRY WITH THOSE WHO ARE REALLY SCREWING YOU OVER.
You talked about SCAMS! Is not the ethanol, corn made alternative energy, a REAL SCAM. You didn?t mention these, as well as many more SCAMS that you are PAYING FOR.
Are not you at least a bit angry at the gas prices, the electric prices, the government, big oil, the bad environment. The Chinese for building 1000 more coal fired Power Plants?
The POINT IS: Yes, criticize me, I really do not care, I BATTLED BETTER MEN THAN YOU, FACE TO FACE, so your words mean nothing.
BUT, use some kind of proof, scientific proof, maybe a little physics proof, that what I ultimately say, is wrong!
FORM, the way I write and the many words I use, takes a less place in my mind, than SUBSTANCE, that which I say! Disprove this!
Can?t you do this as well as throwing stones at me.
Hell, I?m right, and your as blind as a bat., You cannot even see that WHAT I HAVE WROTE, ON MY WEBSITE, ALTHOUGH IT BOTHERS YOU, CANNOT BE DISPROVED! PERIOD!
The other thing, a ?scam?. This upsets me more than anything else, because you do not even mention the I. R. S., etc., ALL the positives. DO YOU QUESTION the UNITED WAY, or call them a scam, AND THEY HAVE A RECORD OF STEALING MILLIONS. How about the Red Cross, THEY AS WELL HAVE A HISTORY OF PEOPLE WORKING FOR THEM, STEALING MILLIONS.
There are dozens of so called ?established charities? that have a record of STEALING MONEY.
After all, you know who I am, where I live and how to get in touch with me.
I think your angry because you don?t have a penny to contribute!
Why bother me with your rhetoric? I was referring to ?DINGUS?S?. Are you jealous?
Maybe this is why you do not want your real name and address, or email or whatever published.
IS THIS THE BEST YOU GOT TO CHALLENGE ME WITH!
?DINGUS??
And, yes, there is quite a lot on my website, and you forgot to mention our other site, www.cedco-marketing.com, BUT YOU HAVEN?T REALLY read THESE WORDS, HAVE YOU?
If you would have read them, you would see exactly what 2 million dollars gets one.
You would also post that I TAKE NO SALARY. I SPEND MY MONEY FOR THE EXPENSES, ETC. I DO NOT USE ONE PENNY OF CONTRIBUTORS MONEY, BECAUSE THAT IS EARMARKED FOR PHASE TWO, which, of course, you didn?t mention, as well.
Yes, I could continue to insult you, but what good would that do.
The truth hurts!
The entity who has money, the 2 million you speak of, badly, and balls, will in fact get what he gets when he contributes to, any other charity, THAT DOESN?T STEAL MILLIONS, PLUS, MORE THAN ANYONE IN THE WORLD CAN GIVE HIM. Period!
HE WILL SEE, the MEANS for the SALVATION of the EARTH
That, however, has to be a man who actually contributes millions, and has a desire to QUIT USING RHETORIC AS YOU DO, and CHALLENGE ONE WHO STATES HE HAS the ANSWERS!
And if want another free education, watch MY posts in the following week, WHERE I PROVE, WHAT I OWN, and DISPROVE WHAT OTHERS MAY SAY I OWN!
If you care, read my answer to ?HUMBUNGER?, which will come up as soon as I can write it.
Answer to the ?HUMBUGGER? Post!
Sorry we cannot have a polite dialogue.. More people would benefit from that, than from what you wrote, BUT, being who I am, and backing away from NO DINGUS, I will take the time to answer you!
Written by Dante A. Donatelli Jr., resident genius, to yet another ?DINGUS? as proved by his very negative answer!
You have all the right to guess. But, as usual, as all DINGUS?S DO, they guess wrong!
Your confused:
#1 Your BIPOLAR disorder, as relates to me, is CHAOS gone astray.
My CHAOS is controlled! You do understand the word CHAOS, don?t you?
I am a VERY TENACIOUS MAN. I WILL NOT BE BACKED DOWN! I OWN WHAT I STATE. I KNOW WHAT IT IS WORTH. I KNOW MY ENEMIES, and these will NOT contribute to us, BUT THERE MAY BE A PERSON or TWO OUT THERE, WHO ISN?T AS DENSE AS YOU.
Is this the best you could come up with?
#2 Your ?DELUSIONS of GRANDEUR!?
Damn RIGHT.
RIGHT ON!
Tell me: Do you KNOW ANYONE who can REALLY SAVE THE WORLD?
You know one now!
Not with rhetoric, BUT WITH REAL POWER PLANTS. REAL TECHNOLOGY. REAL ENERGY. and REAL BALLS to get the job done!
YES? TELL THE WORLD, PLEASE - I DO HAVE A GRANDIOSE ATTITUDE, because GOD, the GREATEST OF ALL, GAVE ME WHAT I OWN.
I am not, however, sir, disillusioned.
I leave that distinction up to the ?DINGUS?S? like you!
#3 ? A ?SHILL or an alter ego called ?NAVIGATOR?.
Sir: You must be a very uneducated man.
Do you really believe, I need a SHILL?
ME, the BIPOLAR, DISILLUSIONED MAN? Me, the resident genius? Me, Dante A. Donatelli Jr.? Me with the BIG MOUTH, plenty of words, text BUT, CAN BACK EVERYTHING I SAY, UP?
This very quite man, ?NAVIGATOR?, ONLY posts where I will not. He does it only, as I understand it, to help our organization. He isn?t as mean as I am. He isn?t as blunt as I am.
HE DOESN?T OWN WHAT I DO!
If you remember, I STATED THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ?OVER-UNITY?.
I have proved this in my work.
I WILL PROVE THIS IN A FEW WEEKS, by HAVING a text that I wrote, posted, for those who want to read it.
The point is, if you dinguses would just recognize the obvious, you would get along better with science.
I AM NOT GOING TO FIGHT THIS ENTIRE WEBSITE, as you do know what this website is called, don?t you, www.over-unity-com.
All I did, was make this statement, asked a few pointed questions to those who disagreed with me, and guess what: The DINGUS?S came out of the wood work, armed with INSULTS and NO PROVABLE FACTS! And you call me, bipolar. Angry yes. Frustrated yes. But bipolar, no way.
NOT ONE ENTITY, CAN PROVE ME WRONG!
Can YOU DINGUS ?HUMBUGGER??
Why?
BECAUSE YOU or ANY OTHER ENTITY CAN PROVE THEMSELVES RIGHT!
Trust me sir, I NEED NO SHILL to answer the DINGUS?S of the World
And, by the way: I give MY ADDRESS, MY PHONE NUMBER, MY EMAIL ADDRESS, MY FAX NUMBER, and MY HEAD SIZE, very, very large!
What have you offered, so far?
And you have the balls to tell everyone, the following:
#4 ?Very little else?!
You actually had the insight to state that I have very little else to offer?
Hell, how much do you want from one genius?
Tell me ONE OTHER MAN, on this website, WHO GETS SO MUCH NEGATIVE COMMENT?
Tell me sir: Where have you ever heard the terms, ?ENERPOWER?, ?DYNALEVER?, ?ELECTROMECHANICAL?, ?INCLEVER?, ?COMPOUND INCLEVER?, ?ROTALEVER?, ?ELIPTILEVER?, ?PENDELEVER? and the BEST, WHICH I HAVE BEEN VALIDATED FOR, the ?MECHANIFOIL?
Do you know sir, that I, Dante A. Donatelli Jr., the person you just knocked, and certain ?JOSH?, another dingus I just answered, calls a person with ? ?DELUSIONS of GRANDEUR?, the one who you are throwing stones at, is in the same company as Daniel Bernoulli and Giovanni Venturi, two of histories greatest scientists?
All three of us are Italians! Do you have a problem with Italians to, sir?
Now, DANTE A. DONATELLI JR., takes his place besides these.
Hell, I am still ALIVE! SO, A DELUSIONAL MAN I AM NOT, a GREAT MAN, I AM, and what bothers most, like you, YOU CAN?T STAND HEARING THIS!
WHO DO YOU TAKE YOUR PLACE BESIDES, SIR?
Do all these terms and phrases I discovered, bother you?
Do you have a problem with my attitude, OR WHAT I OWN?
How I state it, or what my views of the cynics of the World are? What EXACTLY do you hate about me?
Can you, or have you, EVER COME UP WITH AN ORIGINAL IDEA, IN YOUR LIFE?
Or, is all you know and can comment on, is another?s work.
Trust me: I have much more than ?very little else?.
If you don?t believe me, READ OUR SITE!
You can read, can?t you?
But, I?m betting you will not take the time, as you, another ?DINGUS, would rather throw stones at me, rather than asking me a serious question, about a serious subject.
Proves once again, my ?DINGUS? theory works, and works well, as you?re a PERFECT EXAMPLE!
Damn, it?s a burden to be a genious and to be always be right!
I sure must have very broad shoulders to handle all of it!
I can't believe this man isn't crushed by his own ego!
Wow "navigator",
Took you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy and paste some text? Takes me around 5 seconds. Why would it take you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy some text? Maybe you typed that post!
Next time, pre type the posts so there isn't a large hangtime in between the post rants.
Again, loads and loads of text which prove nothing else than typing prowess. This will go nowhere.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 18, 2007, 08:02:46 PM
I can't believe this man isn't crushed by his own ego!
If you read his story you might understand his ego.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 18, 2007, 08:10:52 PM
Wow "navigator",
Took you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy and paste some text? Takes me around 5 seconds. Why would it take you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy some text? Maybe you typed that post!
Next time, pre type the posts so there isn't a large hangtime in between the post rants.
I was never very good at this forum thing, but you can believe what you want. I really don't care because its the substance, not the format, that is important. I first found his site in February and followed his news releases for two months before contacting him in April.
No where has the substance of what he claims been found to be untrue, and only labeled impossible by those who have never seen his powerplants and those that teach that the laws of physics are absolute.
I post this because I believe we are on the verge of a technological revolution, and the term overunity is only an oxymoron that further confuses things.
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 19, 2007, 12:06:51 AM
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 18, 2007, 08:10:52 PM
Wow "navigator",
Took you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy and paste some text? Takes me around 5 seconds. Why would it take you 7minutes and 30seconds to copy some text? Maybe you typed that post!
Next time, pre type the posts so there isn't a large hangtime in between the post rants.
I was never very good at this forum thing, but you can believe what you want. I really don't care because its the substance, not the format, that is important. I first found his site in February and followed his news releases for two months before contacting him in April.
No where has the substance of what he claims been found to be untrue, and only labeled impossible by those who have never seen his powerplants and those that teach that the laws of physics are absolute.
I post this because I believe we are on the verge of a technological revolution, and the term overunity is only an oxymoron that further confuses things.
I am sure an eduacated person of average intelligence can easily decode overunity. OMG! It is just an overbalanced energy ratio. It's so confusing, I failed fractions in grade school. :'(
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 19, 2007, 12:08:05 AM
Quote from: Iosh on August 18, 2007, 08:12:39 PM
This will go nowhere.
Time will tell...
Time will end telling the tale of a man who could not stop talking about how great he thought himself to be instead of a man who really helped the world with his discoveries.
But, of course, I'm completely eager to be wrong.
What you call over-unity, I call unity. Even if it uses the sun or wind, free energy, it is still working as designed. The machine is working at its 100%, designed compacity, that is unity.
The only way over-unity can be achieved, if you combine the literal definition of each, is on accident.
I follow Dante's work, simply because he hasn't said one thing that anyone has proven wrong. I heard one time, that it can take repeating something seven times for some humans to grasp what was said. I think Dante heard the same quote.
This site has everyone in the World who believes in it and maybe science will be progressed. It has been stated that any two contradictory scientific statements, that can be discussed rationally, progresses science, and this has been happening for centuries.
After all, Dante is alive and has already been validated as discovering one of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century, the "Mechanifoil", the vertical airfoil. Have you ever heard of a vertical airfoil, that operates exactly like the horizontal airfoil of an aircraft wing, that which uses solid matter in motion, instead of gaseous matter in motion, that makes airplanes fly?
You use dead inventors and discoverers as you have known them, as a matter of fact.
Has Tesla shown you any proof?
Dante has a website filled with proof, if one wants to read and understand, then ask questions. As far as I know never refused to answer any legitimate question about his New Science or the Old Science that allowed him to discover what he did.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 17, 2007, 08:13:39 PM
Wow,
This is ridiculous! "There is no such thing as over unity". Well first buddy, OVERUNITY IS JUST AN ENERGY MEASURMENT, so your entire "quest" has just been totaly brought down because you don't understand the damn definition. And holy crap, 2,000,000mil? Maybe if I was total retard! And guess what "navigator"? If he is so concerned and typed that giant ego booster, why doesn't he take his @$$ to the forum. Brilliant people like TESLA don't do what you do! You completely miss understood "level", as did I say higher or lower? NO! So just shut your mouth and stop perpetuating this ridiculous thread. And I mean what person would put this thread on OVERUNITY.com?
Sorry If I was harsh, but please realize how ridiculous this is, people should not have a conclusion until they do the experiments and post ALL the data. Ok? :)
An answer to ?hope for humanity? post, written by Dante A. Donatelli Jr., object of ridicule and concern:
Sorry I can not do it in as short a space as he ridiculed me in, but I explain everything, thoroughly, not just half-ass like he did.
I hope, sir that the name you choose to hide behind, has meaning. We do need people who can give ?hope? to humanity!
SO FAR, as I can see it, I am a hope for Earth, and humanity, as I and ONEGIFT4POWER own the ONLY, TRUE ENERGY ever placed on Earth, by GOD. Maybe not the only one, BUT THE BEST AS FAR AS I CAN SEE.
I, personally invented TEN Power Plants to develop, extract and deliver this pure, best, original, very abundant and easily accessible, energy.
That makes me, and onegift4power, the only ?hope for humanity? and for Earth, as I now see it! What do you rest your laurels on?
If this makes you angry, so be it. I address this later on in this text, as well.
FACTS SPEAKING SIR, NOT EGO, but I will address the ?ego? thing, as well, later.
It is obvious YOU know nothing about energy. You do not know, that I personally found over 18 different definitions/explanations for this ONE term, concept, idea or what ever you want to call it, in only 14 scientific reference books, including the Bible of Science. McGraw-Hill.
I suspect there are a dozen more, in at least a dozen more than the 14 I used. You, as most do, think they understand it, but they, in all honesty, and provable as well, do not.
Please, allow me the time to educate you.
First, there are established units for ENERGY, and because science NEVER could separate WORK and ENERGY, the units are the same for both.
ENERGY is supposed to be the capacity to perform work, but I think this is a misnomer, that science will have to work out. I have proved, that POWER, the RATE WORK IS PERFORMED, is the true measure of WORK!
The standard units of measure for energy and work are, watts, ergs, joules, and/or foot-pounds. NEVER has it been written that UNITY is a measurement for ENERGY! PERIOD! AND, there are also UNITS of MEASUREMENT FOR POWER! And guess what, there is only ONE! Period.
FOOT-POUNDS!
I would recommend you reading anything you can find about CLASSICAL MECHANICS, as well.
More factual information that anyone can check out. But, science, physicists especially, do not like the term POWER, and try to find it explained in ANY COLLEGE PHYSICS book. Engineering books yes, but Physics books, no. You cannot! Because it doesn?t exist in the minds of true hard assed scientists. They use the word, but do not believe in the word. Their word is ENERGY, period!
Oh, and by the way, the 1807 and 1856 ENERGY discoveries made by science, that which named ENERGY, that which explains ENERGY, that which is the BEST, ORIGINAL and BEST, MORE ABUNDANT ENERGY, that which uses a ?fuel? as cheap and abundant as dirt, THAT WHICH CAME BEFORE ANY OTHER FORM OF ENERGY, IS NOT EVEN ONE OF THE OVER 18 - I FOUND. In fact, science doesn?t even recognize it. WHY? They discovered it.
Of course, lucky for Earth, and the ?hope for humanity?, I re-discovered it in 1957, and here we are today.
Next, I have no ?QUEST?! PERIOD! The quest I did have, happened in 1957, but I satisfied this one in 1964, when I proved my ?over-efficiency?, and disproved ?over-unity?. So, your wrong once again.
Next, about my ?giant ego booster?. Have you ever read the definition of ?ego?, and ?egocentric??
Ego: ?the entire man considered as union of soul and body?.
THAT?S ME!
Can?t you tell? I do not have two faces, but ONE, with a very loud mouth, trying to educate the World! Period! I don?t hide. I?m here in Arlington, Texas, etc., etc.
Why? Because I know what few other humans on Earth know. I have proved, what no other on Earth has. I have been validated by TWO, World class experts. That sir, is the body and soul of Dante A. Donatelli Jr.
I DO NOT HAVE TO BOOST IT. IT IS HIGHER THAN MOST ON EARTH, in the realm of what I know and what I talk about.
Egocentric: ?the conscious and permanent subject of all experience?.
ME AGAIN!
I have MORE experience with ?SOLID-POWER? technology than ANYONE in the World has, ergo I am the center of it all. What?s your level of experience, in all due respect? Got a college degree? In what? Is it worth anything? Why?
I am NOT knocking degreed people, just so we get that straight, BUT, the MOST INTELLIGENT PERSON in the WORLD, has no degree, why not those, as well, that have discovered what no other person on Earth has.
Next: about my @$$.
The ?forum? I use, is the World. You may be very surprised to know, that there are people out there that EVEN DISAGREE WITH YOU. There are people who disagree with me, and ask questions, make legitimate comments, want more.
I ONLY have used the ?forum?, ?www.over-unity.com? because I was led to it. I do not belong to your group. I do not want to belong to any group. As I stated, ?groups? limit mans mind.
A man who belongs to a ?group?, cannot express his true feelings, or even expand that which he may believe in, or subtract from it as the case may be, or he is ridiculed, as you have ridiculed NAVIGATOR.
But, where else would he post my theory, what HE FELT I have PROVEN, about ?over-unity?.
I tried Sesame Street, but they couldn?t understand it.
Its amazing, so far, I have had at least five explanations of ?over-unity?, and no one seems to understand what they are saying. There is no real consensus. They only repeat what they think they know. Physics is theory at best. ?Over-unity? is a phrase that has been used for centuries, and today, no one knows why, because IT DOESN?T EXIST! Period!
No wonder, they have such a time with main stream science, They use impossible, not possible, real impossible and non existing phrase to explain, SOME THING THAT MAY HAVE MERIT, A DEVICE THAT USES A FREE ENERGY, SOMETHING NEW, AS MOST ON YOUR SITE THINK THEY OWN, and I have no problem with this, BUT, to use a phrase, that never existed, cannot be proved it existed, or even exists today, is irrational, at best.
The simple definition of UNITY is: ?one?. It is 100% of anything. How can one get more than one, from one?
A device which claims ?over-unity?, has to be getting more of something, from somewhere, and if he or she could pin point this, then maybe he or she would embrace the ?over-efficiency? theory, I stated. Until one can use the same reasoning, science, facts and logic, I use in my latest text, ?The FACTS of the EM - 5000?, as to their device, and I do not give away secrets, it will never be proven. Reason being, I KNOW what I own, and what I am talking about.
Prove it to me, and I may then be a believer! Are you scared to, or is it that you just blow smoke and ridicule. Poor defenseless human beings?
He is backed up BY ME! I CHALLENGE YOU! I can hold my own! I own what I claim! I?ve met insulting jerks like you before, and a few face to face.
I SHOWED A PART OF WHAT I OWNED TO MAIN STREAM SCIENCE, TWICE. BOTH AGREED I OWN SOMETHING NEVER BEFORE DISCOVERED. I WILL WAGER, THAT IF I SHOW IT TO MORE, THESE MORE WILL AS WELL AGREE.
Why is this? Simply because I do own what I claim. Period, and it isn?t ?over-unity?, even though the Power Plants run themselves, electrically, never use fuel, and will never wear out, but the mechanics will at some point a hundred or two from now!
NEXT, then there is the 2 million dollar thing, that no one seems to get their arms around, no one who has posted supposed answers, that is.
I DON?T WANT 2 MILLION. I DO NOT NEED TWO MILLION.
It seems that because I am President of a charity, the spokesman, the discoverer, the inventor, that this 2 million, somehow, will end in my pocket. The I. R. S. doesn?t agree with this thinking, and Dante, who is 72 years young, has no real wanting to end his life on a scamming note. After all, he is going to meet GOD, and why would he want this to tell HIM about?
Why, would any rational man, ask for a measly 2 million dollars, to propagate a technology worth trillions, when he has already spent, of his own money, near two million of today?s dollars to bring it into existence?
Then why would a charity ask for 2 million dollars, to propagate a gift they were given. Maybe because they are a charity, duh!!!
Yes, a charity has to beg for money. EVERY CHARITY ON EARTH has to beg for money. WHY? Because they need it to carry out their charitable activity. PERIOD!
WE, ONEGIFT4POWER, OWN TWO charitable activities: the first is ?Scientific research for the Public Good?, as listed and approved by the I. R. S. What have YOU done for the Public Good lately?
WE OWN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. We3 need a proverbial drop in the bucket, to propagate this property. We need to get it to the ?people?! We need a few peoples help. Those who cannot do anything by themselves, but by joining ONEGIFT4POWER, and getting, at the very least, a tax deduction, can in fact HELP HUMANITY! PERIOD!
For those who do not have money, a million is an unattainable amount, but for those who OWN the WORLD?S BEST ENERGY, means for delivery, IT IS A DROP IN THE BUCKET, attainable, and we are on our way to secure it, no matter what you think!
There?s nothing more I can say, except I have to defend ?NAVIGATOR?!
A man posts an idea. (NAVIGATOR). He tries his best to offer his opinion. Others believe in TESLA. Some believe in EINSTEIN, GALILEO, and NEWTON, but all these are dead!
So, this man believes one who is alive. One who has been validated. One who operates like no other. One who is so sure, he isn?t afraid to say it, with name, rank and serial number, and never has used an ?alias? to talk to others.
One who speaks loud, because it seems there are those, like yourself, that cannot even hear the loud words he speaks. You seem to need a LOUDER, More egotistical, more what ever, VOICE TO GET threw to you. FACTS, that are believed by this man.
No matter, there are those who chastise him for his OPINION. Isn?t this a free country, where web worms like yourself can hide behind your computer and spill out you guile?
Why cannot he have the same chance. He believes he is reaching educated, knowledgeable people, but I?m beginning to wonder. He believes he is getting an important message out, no matter what you think.
Any group that is afraid of the truth, or the truth as an expert sees it, or the opinion of one who states he isn?t an expert, sees it, sure is a narrow minded group of people.
I am terse, loud, egotistical, etc., etc., as I have been called worse, because you all are terse against me. I am a pussy cat, with those who at the very least, respect my rights to express myself, and I think, the same should be extended to anyone, as well.
All this man has agreed to do, besides giving his opinion, good or bad, for ONEGIFT4POWER is to post my text, as I will not join your group, not because I don?t like you, as I can answer anything you have to say, even your meanness, but because I have never and will never join a ?group?.
Reason being, a group limits a man?s thinking!
That said, however, I must tell you, there is no such thing as ?over-unity?
IF I AM WRONG, PROVE IT TO ME! Prove it to all those who believe as you do. Prove it instead of ramping about it, calling me names.
I am sure we will get post, negative posts about what I have already stated, so I will end this post with this:
?I have stated, there is no ?over-unity?, but rather ?over-efficiency?, and although many have answered this, all in negative, and non professional, and non scientific, and non proven ways, NO ONE, AS YET, HAS COME UP WITH any proof THEY ARE RIGHT, and I WRONG.
On the other hand, I HAVE PROVEN, I AM RIGHT, AND NO ONE CAN OR HAS PROVEN ME WRONG!?
If this is EGO TALKING, or anything else that I have been called or accused of, remember one thing, THEY HUNG GALILEO, PEOPLE JUST LIKE ?DINGUS?, and ?JOSH? and ?BUMBUGGER?, and now, ?HOPE FOR HUMANITY?, AND I mean THEY REALLY HUNG HIM BY HIS NECK for what he stated, and he was a mild mannered man, I understand. So much for mild manners!.
At least, today, I can only be hung on a website!
Please, for the sake of all those who are reading this and learning, have factual ammunition when you answer this statement that started this entire firestorm, and if the group on www.over-unity.com cannot defend what they believe, then we live in a sorrier World that even I imagined!
Just to say something, means nothing. To prove what you say, is everything, factual and important, that is.
I am preparing another text, to further prove what we own, and that ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? is fact, ?over-unity? never did, and never will exist, on Earth, and if anyone wants to read it, I will have it posted herein. Its called, ?The FACTS ? of the EM-5000, the Power Plant?, that will change the Earth, save the Earth, and put all dialogue to bed!
NO ONE IN THE WORLD, can match this text, WITH ANYTHING THEY BELIEVE IS ?OVER-UNITY?. PERIOD!
Please, if you want to read it, just post a say so, and I will oblige!
Or, email me at answers@onegift4power.org, and I will specifically email it to you!
Even if only one wants to reads it, there?s REAL ?hope for humanity?
Dante.
The true savior of the World, as relates to the environment, energy, fuel and energy source
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.
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.
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%.
DO NOT CONFUSE EFFICIENCY WITH COP.
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
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.
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!
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 05:22:10 PM
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...
QuoteAs 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.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 05:22:10 PM
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.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 19, 2007, 06:26:49 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 08:34:15 PM
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.
Why does everyone question the format as if it really carries any weight?
I will use more effort in an atttempt to re-phrase the question, so please excuse any mistakes in the composition.
Earlier you stated...
Quotethere is no such thing as more than 100% efficiency! PERIOD.
How do you explain the reports and their findings found at this link
http://www.onegift4power.org/Reports.html (http://www.onegift4power.org/Reports.html)
Sounds pretty much like over efficiency to me. Input is 750W and output is 5000W.
Please explain, in your opinion, if not over-efficiency, what they are describing?
Maybe you have something better to do, my guess is you cannot answer the question so you attack the format.
I really wish Dante would allow us the unique opportunity to gaze upon his works. I've read allot of the site and discovered that we share some opinions of the physics laws and what they represent in a natural setting. that took me in like bait on a hook. However i might just as well forget it because it seems to be a well guarded secret. :'(
Actually NG,
I was referring to, as were you, to the questions you wrote on the oupower.com forum, not the ones here...pay attention please.
The only thing one may say for certain of Dante's device is that it exhibits a COP>1.
This holds true whether he is able to increase power output with the same input, OR whether he is able to lower the required input power while maintaining the same output power.
According to the one report, Dante's motor/generator setup is about 67% efficient. This is without his device attached, but still holds true when it IS attached, even if the required input power decreases due to the device.
The "mechanical advantage" obtained by using the device ultimately must come from some outside source, and that source whatever it may be constitutes the "open system" which furnishes the additional power in the generator.
So, once again, the efficiency of Dante's device as a system is about 67%.
The COP however is in excess of 1:1.
Darren
PS. Oh, and one last thing, I care not one iota if an engineer with a Phd refers to efficiencies in excess of 100% when it comes to power systems. People of "higher education" put their feet in their mouths more often than one cares to think about...and I've tutored a few of them. So sorry, just because Mr. Carnes stated "103% efficiency" does not mean it is technically correct.
You and your friends ought to have a heart to heart discussion with Mr. Bearden.
NG,
Here's a paper for you and your friends to review if you wish.
It explains what efficiency and COP is (and the fact that n can never be greater than 1), and it even pertains to motors and the use of Lorentz gauge in using permanent magnets to assist in achieving COP>1.
http://www.seaspower.com/walter.doc
Cheers,
Darren
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
Actually NG,
I was referring to, as were you, to the questions you wrote on the oupower.com forum, not the ones here...pay attention please.
If you review the questions, I think you will find that they were one in the same, just different wording. I do hope we can continue the discussion, maturely, and leave the condescending remarks behind.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
The only thing one may say for certain of Dante's device is that it exhibits a COP>1.
This I don't understand because he does not use heat as input nor do his powerplant generate any heat other than the friction in the bearings.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
This holds true whether he is able to increase power output with the same input, OR whether he is able to lower the required input power while maintaining the same output power.
According to the one report, Dante's motor/generator setup is about 67% efficient. This is without his device attached, but still holds true when it IS attached, even if the required input power decreases due to the device.
The input is equal to output, at startup, until the powerplant reaches the desired RPM, then the input neccessary to keep it running is reduced and the input is then taken from the output.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
The "mechanical advantage" obtained by using the device ultimately must come from some outside source, and that source whatever it may be constitutes the "open system" which furnishes the additional power in the generator.
Do you believe the kinetic energy generated by accelerating and decelerating the objects in motion cannot be harnessed?
Quote from: z_p_e on August 19, 2007, 09:53:24 PM
So, once again, the efficiency of Dante's device as a system is about 67%.
The COP however is in excess of 1:1
Darren
PS. Oh, and one last thing, I care not one iota if an engineer with a Phd refers to efficiencies in excess of 100% when it comes to power systems. People of "higher education" put their feet in their mouths more often than one cares to think about...and I've tutored a few of them. So sorry, just because Mr. Carnes stated "103% efficiency" does not mean it is technically correct.
Because you have tutored a few, does that mean you are incapable of putting your foot in your mouth? Isn't that the way we progress, by not being afraid to share opinions even with the possibility of someone shedding light on how wrong our ideas may be? Maybe we should just believe, and not question, anything you have to say, you do say it eloquently enough.
My point is, as with physics, nothing in this field of discussion is absolute, instead, only opinions based on laws of science that have been changing for centuries.
Mr. Carnes had previously invalidated two others devices, which gives him more credibility than most ME, and it raises the possibilty of him being technically correct.
What about what Richard Olenick says? Of all the Physics professors he was given $2 mil. by the government to re-write our physics textbook, does his opinion mean anything?
Of course I reviewed the questions...you put little effort into them, just as you have done so with your whole thinking process here.
Why do you assume COP is strictly limited to heat?
I am always referring to power (or at times energy), as does Mr. Carnes (Watts).
If you read the report, he states it requires 7450 Watts to power the 5000 Watt generator, so there is your efficiency right there.
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!
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 14, 2007, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 14, 2007, 12:37:06 PM
WHAT A STUPID DISCUSSION!
Is any of this really relevant? You are all talking about the same thing from different vantage points.
YOU ARE ALL CORRECT!
If you have an electric motor and a solar cell, you could take the stance that it is OU if you dont take into accout the sun (say if you didnt know what the sun or light was). ie a system outside of equilibrium...because we deliberately left out one half....the sun
OR you could say it is not OU and take into accout the sun, ie a closed system
We consider some machines OU because we do not understand ZPE or whatever name you want to give the phenomenon, which is essentially the "battery" Of course if you leave the power source out it will look like OU!
What others are saying is that once you include ZPE or the battery in the picture its not OU.
SIMPLE
Dont over complicate and waste time.
Thanks, I'm glad you have it all figured out, although in a few years I believe your answer will only be an elementary generalization.
Last time I flipped through my elementarty texts, I saw a description of a circuit. It explained it as a circular path! wow what an elementary generalization! I guess our entire foundation of electrical engineering is incorrect because it was boiled down to a singular truth and not an overly complicated definition!
When people say you can't get more energy out than you put in is hundred percent correct. But what people forget is that the gravity, electromagnetic fields, cosmic vibrations etc are all energies, so yes, you do get out what you put in. If someone created a clever device that used magnets and the earths gravity, to put out more electricity than put in, it is NOT breaking any scientific rule, it is simply using other available energy resources, to generate more electricity than originally put in. Is dropping a ball from the sky overunity? And if you can't understand this Navigator, or simply like to argue, then please take questions like that elsewhere, people here are real busy, and I would rather have them working on real things, than getting wound up.
Kind Regards,
Daking
I have been reading from the sidelines - And will not participate in the back-and-forth. However, I have one main question for all of you who have "Skirted" the following question repeatedly:
No one seems to comment on the 2 gentlemen that have written reports regarding Dante?s work - Specifically Dr. Richard Olenick and Ted Carnes.
There seems to be a lot of rock-throwing at the man Dante. However, when the mentions of the preceding reputable persons are brought up - No one seems to comment.
I guess what you all are saying is that since you call Dante?s work a scam (with no proof I might ad, just off definitions you think can never be wrong or modified with new findings overlooked by previous "Experts") - Are you calling to 2 above gentlemen incorrect in their reports?
I would like to hear what all of you "Very Busy" people have to say about ALL of the reports written on Dante?s behalf - especially the bio that states that Mr. Carnes was originally interested in Dante?s work to DISPROOVE it - And, instead, validated it.......
Seems to me that Dante has more on his side than you guys have to throw at him. You have definitions of this and that - He has real experts who have tried to Disprove him - And, wrote reports to the contrary.
Just curious.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 12:33:02 PM
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.
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
Quote from: OneGift4Power Supporter on August 20, 2007, 04:19:24 PM
I have been reading from the sidelines - And will not participate in the back-and-forth. However, I have one main question for all of you who have "Skirted" the following question repeatedly:
No one seems to comment on the 2 gentlemen that have written reports regarding Dante?s work - Specifically Dr. Richard Olenick and Ted Carnes.
There seems to be a lot of rock-throwing at the man Dante. However, when the mentions of the preceding reputable persons are brought up - No one seems to comment.
I guess what you all are saying is that since you call Dante?s work a scam (with no proof I might ad, just off definitions you think can never be wrong or modified with new findings overlooked by previous "Experts") - Are you calling to 2 above gentlemen incorrect in their reports?
I would like to hear what all of you "Very Busy" people have to say about ALL of the reports written on Dante?s behalf - especially the bio that states that Mr. Carnes was originally interested in Dante?s work to DISPROOVE it - And, instead, validated it.......
Seems to me that Dante has more on his side than you guys have to throw at him. You have definitions of this and that - He has real experts who have tried to Disprove him - And, wrote reports to the contrary.
Just curious.
thanks for the info.
edit - just found this: http://www.onegift4power.org/TheGift.html
is it open source technology?
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 20, 2007, 04:36:38 PM
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
Try "Richard P. Olenick" and the search results will be much different. I will make it easy, the first five results...
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Richard%20P.%20Olenick&page=1 (http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Richard%20P.%20Olenick&page=1)
http://www.bookfinder.com/author/richard-p-olenick/ (http://www.bookfinder.com/author/richard-p-olenick/)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PEPI...50..203C (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988PEPI...50..203C)
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Beyond_the_Mechanical_Universe-ISBN_9780521304306.html?isrc=b-search (http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Beyond_the_Mechanical_Universe-ISBN_9780521304306.html?isrc=b-search)
http://phys.udallas.edu/ (http://phys.udallas.edu/)
If you feel this is a waste of your time then why are participating in the discussion?
Is there a more suitable place to share information on something like this?
does not seem to be open source :-X
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 20, 2007, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 12:33:02 PM
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?
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 20, 2007, 12:34:25 PM
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^) 8)
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 20, 2007, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 12:33:02 PM
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.
MG,
Allow me to jump ahead and answer your next question.
"How is it possible that Dante's device can only be 67% efficient if clearly it is putting out more power than is being put it when the device is connected, i.e. Pi=4800W, and Po=5000W.
Well, I have not read any of Dante's material, but I gather from the Carnes report, it is some kind of mechanical apparatus that attaches to the shaft in between the motor and generator.
In addition, I assume that no internal modification has been done to either the motor or generator when Dante's device is attached. Correct?
If the above interpretation and assumption is correct, then the reason the efficiency calculation is unaffected is because none of the losses, either internal or external to the motor and generator have been removed or modified.
Internally, there are bearing, Lenz, eddy, I^2R, heat etc. losses that don't go away just because Dante's device is attached.
The phenomenon that is responsible for achieving COP>1 in Dante's case arises from additional energy being furnished to the overall system via an outside force. In this case it could be gravity, it could be something to do with the "Aspden Effect", or perhaps along the lines of Schauberger's work, but whatever the mechanism dante is using, it is allowing additional energy in some form to enter the system, making it COP>1.
With or without this mechanism, the system efficiency remains the same.
Without Dante's device, let's assume there is a heavy flywheel attached to the shaft between the motor and generator. Now apply enough power to cause the motor to spin say 100 RPM. Let us also assume that the efficiency of this setup is still about 67%.
Now, you are standing close to the flywheel, and every second or so, you "slap" the flywheel with your hand in the direction of rotation, adding kinetic energy and as a result slightly higher RPM to the system.
So have you just altered the system efficiency? No, of course not. Have you then altered the system COP? Yes, absolutely.
If I am wrong about all this, by all means put me right...anyone.
Cheers,
Darren
Many arn't replying to the thread because they think dante is a scam, but because he got the definition of overunity wrong. THATS IT!!! NOTHING ELSE!!! Yet people are becoming very disgruntled by navigator posting the "words" of Dante. Dante calls people who say overunity to be wrong. That the laws of physics are wrong. What he doesn't realize is that the intention of the website is to prove many laws of physics wrong, in an open source way. Plain and simple, we are doing the same thing as dante, changing some laws of physics, but we still use the CORRECT definition of overunity. So why do I get pissed off about this thread navigator? Because it feels more like an attack on the website! Should we start attacking the words Dante uses on his website?
Think about it!
Now think about this!
You get on to the forum www.OVERUNITY.com and create a thread called The truth about "overunity". Then you make the intention of the thread to tell us how the dedinition of overunity is flawed.
Now do you see what I'm saying? It's one of the most rude things you could possibly do on a forum. Go to any forum and call it's title flawed and you will recieve resistance.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 07:12:11 PM
MG,
Allow me to jump ahead and answer your next question.
"How is it possible that Dante's device can only be 67% efficient if clearly it is putting out more power than is being put it when the device is connected, i.e. Pi=4800W, and Po=5000W.
Well, I have not read any of Dante's material, but I gather from the Carnes report, it is some kind of mechanical apparatus that attaches to the shaft in between the motor and generator.
In addition, I assume that no internal modification has been done to either the motor or generator when Dante's device is attached. Correct?
If the above interpretation and assumption is correct, then the reason the efficiency calculation is unaffected is because none of the losses, either internal or external to the motor and generator have been removed or modified.
Internally, there are bearing, Lenz, eddy, I^2R, heat etc. losses that don't go away just because Dante's device is attached.
The phenomenon that is responsible for achieving COP>1 in Dante's case arises from additional energy being furnished to the overall system via an outside force. In this case it could be gravity, it could be something to do with the "Aspden Effect", or perhaps along the lines of Schauberger's work, but whatever the mechanism dante is using, it is allowing additional energy in some form to enter the system, making it COP>1.
Agreed with all of the above.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 07:12:11 PM
With or without this mechanism, the system efficiency remains the same.
This is pure speculation on my part, but how far out of the box is it to think maybe the mechanism uses forces of nature to reduce friction?
I can think of a few interesting phenomena where centrifugal force allows solid objects to defy gravity, that which causes friction.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 07:12:11 PM
Without Dante's device, let's assume there is a heavy flywheel attached to the shaft between the motor and generator. Now apply enough power to cause the motor to spin say 100 RPM. Let us also assume that the efficiency of this setup is still about 67%.
Now, you are standing close to the flywheel, and every second or so, you "slap" the flywheel with your hand in the direction of rotation, adding kinetic energy and as a result slightly higher RPM to the system.
So have you just altered the system efficiency? No, of course not. Have you then altered the system COP? Yes, absolutely.
If I am wrong about all this, by all means put me right...anyone.
Cheers,
Darren
Thats why Dante says over efficiency, again pure speculation on my part.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 20, 2007, 07:44:36 PM
Many arn't replying to the thread because they think dante is a scam, but because he got the definition of overunity wrong. THATS IT!!! NOTHING ELSE!!! Yet people are becoming very disgruntled by navigator posting the "words" of Dante. Dante calls people who say overunity to be wrong. That the laws of physics are wrong. What he doesn't realize is that the intention of the website is to prove many laws of physics wrong, in an open source way. Plain and simple, we are doing the same thing as dante, changing some laws of physics, but we still use the CORRECT definition of overunity. So why do I get pissed off about this thread navigator? Because it feels more like an attack on the website! Should we start attacking the words Dante uses on his website?
Think about it!
Now think about this!
You get on to the forum www.OVERUNITY.com and create a thread called The truth about "overunity". Then you make the intention of the thread to tell us how the dedinition of overunity is flawed.
Now do you see what I'm saying? It's one of the most rude things you could possibly do on a forum. Go to any forum and call it's title flawed and you will recieve resistance.
It seems like anybody unwilling to reveal secrets receives resistance and rightfully so. I understand the position you are coming from and have done my best to remain civil, as I agree and understand everything you say.
I am not trying to be rude instead provoke discussion. You need thicker skin, this is a public forum afterall.
I'll be honest, I have learned alot from this thread, and may well be wrong. Regardless how this thread ends I doubt it will have any impact on the success or lack there of achieved by overunity.com.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 15, 2007, 12:09:20 AM
I'm pretty sure NAV has gotten his answer already... Lets not let this thread turn in to name calling and semantics. Also I think h4h's point was that eccentric or "crazy" inventors tend to be very sane in retrospect. They're percieved as 'crazy' because people do not yet understand. He's not talking about himself or even a member of this board... You implied that.
~Dingus Mungus
Yeah thats me not defaming this Dante guy...
One could almost construe it to be support.
I'm in the middle of a move. My lab is in boxes.
I'm irritated and busy as hell, and I come back to this.
I picked a hell of a time to take a break from the site.
Some one show me one instant where I insulted Navi or Dante...
QUOTE IT!
You've been using my handle as some sort of insult
because I answered your question accurately.
Fucking with my hobby because I gave a logical arguement.
Respond with well thought out words...
I'm not he one who looks like an asshole here.
~Dingus Mungus
DM,
To whom are you referring?
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 22, 2007, 03:14:27 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 15, 2007, 12:09:20 AM
I'm pretty sure NAV has gotten his answer already... Lets not let this thread turn in to name calling and semantics. Also I think h4h's point was that eccentric or "crazy" inventors tend to be very sane in retrospect. They're percieved as 'crazy' because people do not yet understand. He's not talking about himself or even a member of this board... You implied that.
~Dingus Mungus
Yeah thats me not defaming this Dante guy...
One could almost construe it to be support.
I'm in the middle of a move. My lab is in boxes.
I'm irritated and busy as hell, and I come back to this.
I picked a hell of a time to take a break from the site.
Some one show me one instant where I insulted Navi or Dante...
QUOTE IT!
You've been using my handle as some sort of insult
because I answered your question accurately.
Fucking with my hobby because I gave a logical arguement.
Respond with well thought out words...
I'm not he one who looks like an asshole here.
~Dingus Mungus
I have to agree with you on this one there was no reason for it to go down like that. ???
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 15, 2007, 12:09:20 AM
Yeah thats me not defaming this Dante guy...
One could almost construe it to be support.
I'm in the middle of a move. My lab is in boxes.
I'm irritated and busy as hell, and I come back to this.
I picked a hell of a time to take a break from the site.
Some one show me one instant where I insulted Navi or Dante...
QUOTE IT!
You've been using my handle as some sort of insult
because I answered your question accurately.
Fucking with my hobby because I gave a logical arguement.
Respond with well thought out words...
I'm not he one who looks like an asshole here.
~Dingus Mungus
You didn't insult anybody, quite the opposite. I did state that I thought others were more deserving of Dantes comments but I posted it anyway at his request.
As I said earlier, I suck at this forum thing and this is another example of bad judgement on my part.
What can I say, in an attempt to spread what I believe is the answer to our energy problems, I threw you under the bus.
My sincere apologises to you and anyone I offended by this thread, although I would be surprised if anyone here percieves you as the asshole.
@NG
"What can I say, in an attempt to spread what I believe is the answer to our energy problems, I threw you under the bus."
I don't see where in this thread where anything has been posted as an attempt to spread any answers. you have posted nothing that would assist us. BAH!
Quote from: ring_theory on August 22, 2007, 01:53:41 PMI don't see where in this thread where anything has been posted as an attempt to spread any answers.
How come? He spread the word of Dante, our new money-asking, proof-lacking, self-appointed free energy overlord! :D
Quote from: Iosh on August 22, 2007, 02:52:09 PM
Quote from: ring_theory on August 22, 2007, 01:53:41 PMI don't see where in this thread where anything has been posted as an attempt to spread any answers.
How come? He spread the word of Dante, our new money-asking, proof-lacking, self-appointed free energy overlord! :D
It is quite transparent isn't it? ;D
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 22, 2007, 09:12:34 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on August 15, 2007, 12:09:20 AM
Yeah thats me not defaming this Dante guy...
One could almost construe it to be support.
I'm in the middle of a move. My lab is in boxes.
I'm irritated and busy as hell, and I come back to this.
I picked a hell of a time to take a break from the site.
Some one show me one instant where I insulted Navi or Dante...
QUOTE IT!
You've been using my handle as some sort of insult
because I answered your question accurately.
Fucking with my hobby because I gave a logical arguement.
Respond with well thought out words...
I'm not he one who looks like an asshole here.
~Dingus Mungus
You didn't insult anybody, quite the opposite. I did state that I thought others were more deserving of Dantes comments but I posted it anyway at his request.
As I said earlier, I suck at this forum thing and this is another example of bad judgement on my part.
What can I say, in an attempt to spread what I believe is the answer to our energy problems, I threw you under the bus.
My sincere apologises to you and anyone I offended by this thread, although I would be surprised if anyone here percieves you as the asshole.
Well what ever the cause of this incident I'm a little pissed about it...
Tell Dante he should
at least read what people wrote before insulting them over a dozen times!
~Dingus Mungus
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!! ;D
@HopeForHumanity
You forget the 1 800 number.
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 20, 2007, 04:36:38 PM
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...
QuoteAnswer 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.
Quote from: ring_theory on August 20, 2007, 06:48:30 PM
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 20, 2007, 12:34:25 PM
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^) 8)
Dantes response...
QuoteAnswer 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.
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 20, 2007, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 05:23:23 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 20, 2007, 04:33:57 PM
Quote from: z_p_e on August 20, 2007, 12:33:02 PM
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 ;D
QuoteTo ?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.
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 20, 2007, 07:44:36 PM
Many arn't replying to the thread because they think dante is a scam, but because he got the definition of overunity wrong. THATS IT!!! NOTHING ELSE!!! Yet people are becoming very disgruntled by navigator posting the "words" of Dante. Dante calls people who say overunity to be wrong. That the laws of physics are wrong. What he doesn't realize is that the intention of the website is to prove many laws of physics wrong, in an open source way. Plain and simple, we are doing the same thing as dante, changing some laws of physics, but we still use the CORRECT definition of overunity. So why do I get pissed off about this thread navigator? Because it feels more like an attack on the website! Should we start attacking the words Dante uses on his website?
Think about it!
Now think about this!
You get on to the forum www.OVERUNITY.com and create a thread called The truth about "overunity". Then you make the intention of the thread to tell us how the dedinition of overunity is flawed.
Now do you see what I'm saying? It's one of the most rude things you could possibly do on a forum. Go to any forum and call it's title flawed and you will recieve resistance.
Dantes response...
QuoteTo HopeForH, Reply #69.
Many are not replying because ?YOU? are saying Dante is a scam.
In reality, and if one wanted to check us out, we are as legitimate as the Red Cross, etc., but have only been around for a few months.
Its easy to call others scammers, or frauds, these are two words the cynics use, but these same cynics HAVE NEVER PROPOSED AN ORIGINAL IDEA IN THEIR LIVES, they just knock those who do.
I have discovered one thing about this site, YOU PEOPLE ARE CYNICAL. So, when I answer you, I HAVE TO TREAT KIND WITH KIND. I have to be rude and cynical as well. I will not take your rhetoric that defiles everything you don?t understand or believe in, ergo, I will not post anymore on this site, if you keep your mouths shut.
If you continue to blast me, I will answer you.
Dante not only states what he has accomplished, has had it proven by EXPERTS and not web-worms, and even has been called a fraud by a supposedly degreed physics professor from Oregon State University, UNTIL HE PROVED THIS MAN WAS A FRAUD, HIMSELF, in a World Wide public forum, FOUR MONTHS RUNNING, but Dante CHALLENGES ANYONE who wants PROOF. Proof that he owns what he claims and proof that he can do what he states.
As far as ONEGIFT4POWER is concerned, our 156 page application, to the I. R. S., for their approval, which we received, is a matter of public record that any U.S. Citizen can check out.
If YOU cannot come up with the cash to back up YOUR MOUTH, then Dante doesn?t have to come up with the proof, you demand. Dante doesn?t get this money, ONEGIFT4POWER, the charity gets this money, but Dante gives the secrets.
There are many posts on this thread. Very few have even emailed me. I really do not think this site is for us. It provides nothing constructive, except uses terms like ?OVER-UNITY? which it cannot prove, by simple scientific words, Old Science words, but it is stuck to by the members like glue. WHY? If no one can prove it exists, in simply scientific words, like ENERGY USED, (the UNITY), ENERGY ADDED, (the OVER UNITY), ENERGY OUTPUT, (the results of the UNITY and the OVER UNITY ADDED,) and the conversion or development process they use, NOT how they accomplish it, BUT WHAT DO THEY USE?
Do they create energy? Do they develop energy? Do they find energy laying in or on the ground? Do they get this UNITY energy from thin air? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
Very simple question to answer, and doesn?t have to give secrets away.
Dante uses ELECTRICAL ENERGY TWICE. Uses MECHANICAL ENERGY three times. The details can be found on our site, in a few weeks.
Dante?s Power Plant use, at the least, a -5- energy system operations. His ?MINI-POWER Plant?, which uses his ?greatest discovery of the twentieth century?, ??MECHANIFOIL?, the VERTICAL AIRFOIL, uses ?7- energy systems, as validated by Dr. Olenick, on our site.
NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY, HAS ONE USED ?5- or ?7- ENERGY SYSTEMS in the operations of their POWER PLANT!
In comparison, just for your understanding, an auto uses a ?2- energy system operation, chemical energy, gasoline, converted to mechanical energy, PERIOD!
NOW, HOW DOES YOURS WORK?
ENERGY has to come from someplace, wouldn?t one think so? OR, do they steal energy, as one device Ted Carnes analyzed in his career, he found that the man stole energy from the Power company and claimed he was getting it from another source?
I make a simple point, and attempts at beating me down are going on, or so it seems but I cannot get beat down, about this simple statement I made.
If one cannot prove, by simple words, how and why he or she claims to have an ?over-unity? device, or better yet, that which I am talking about, a POWER PLANT, (as my so called devices or machines are in reality POWER PLANTS and Power Plants operate totally different, as they are constructed to PERFORM REAL WORK, not just run like a toy,) that he or she claims to go over-unity, THEN EXPLAIN IT. or if you prefer as this is the message I am getting, you don?t care about the proof, it something you like to talk about, think about and criticize others about, so be it. What you are saying, is get out of our neighborhood, as we believe our way, and you do no9t, and we do not want to hear about your way.
In religious history, I think a man was hung for this, called Jesus, as HE tried to educate the people of his time, but ?.!
If all you entities reading this are just sitting around playing with, and sitting on your phrases etc., and not concerned about reality and truthfulness, then I truly apologize.
I was led to believe this site was set up for COMMUNICATIONS, and to get to the truth, and for some to give and others to take, KNOWLEDGE.
I can prove, with the same as I am asking you to produce, that ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? exists, and ?OVER-UNITY? is a misnomer.
Navigator got an education that I have been privy to for decades.
?Those who do nothing and know nothing, just sit and criticize those who do, and the advent of the World-Wide-Web, makes it much easier to hide!?
If anyone wants a real conversation, please email me at ?answers@onegift4power.org
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 22, 2007, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: ring_theory on August 20, 2007, 06:48:30 PM
Quote from: armagdn03 on August 20, 2007, 12:34:25 PM
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^) 8)
Dantes response...
QuoteAnswer 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.
Well I'll say you or dante are not too good at the forum thing! It was NOT MY POST!!
However this is my contribution!
"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^) 8)"
I tell you what you better get a grip on reality before you start jumping in here. #1 You have absolutely NO credibility here! I for one don't give two hoots about a word that comes out of your mouths. I have technology that would challenge what you CLAIM to have. #2 I have open sourced it for those here to peer at. Not that they took interests in it. But that's not what is important. #3 IF you have technology that you claim is a gift, than let those that are giving get on with the giving! #4 I was talking to the original poster! so don't butt in with your ego! thinking everyone here even wants to hear from you! crawl back under your bridge NG/dante.
OH please do take it personal! ::)
@ring-theory
Come on man. Tone it down will ya.
@Navi-gator
Forget about the patent. Forget about the theory. Forget about saving the world. Forget about making a power plant the size of ten football fields. Forget about all that. Here are some questions.
1) Why are there so many dollars signs on the web site. Money - Money - Money all over. Asked another way. Who's intelligent idea was it to associate something as profound as all the claims Dant? is making with so much emphasis on money.
2) Such a way of selling your idea to the world is like Sunday TV preachers. We'll save you, so send us your money.
3) Come on. How stupid do you think we are here. This type of marketing may work on Mr. Regular but here, there is no place.
4) The other day someone came here to offer 10 million dollars if someone will show OU. We told him to go fly a kite. We won't flinch.
5) Why does a not-for-profit organization own a for profit organization. Nice.
6) What is the mission statement of this NFPO. How can we see a financial statement that confirms it is in fact doing so with the money.
What I think is this.
You and Dant? should go back to your board of directors and figure out a more serious way of "spreading the word". You should also target your marketing to another type of group or forum. Here, as soon as we see Money - Money - Money, you're a goner.
So, if you want to talk about a fact of life, the above is a fact of life. Now you can spend your days pounding your hammer on an anvil. Then we here would simply say, good luck.
On the other hand, if there is something to show concretely, please feel welcome to discuss it in the language of your choice.
Also, if all that Dant? is stating is a theory, then this is alright. We see theories here everyday. Life is a theory. But don't pass for fact what cannot be corroborated.
@Wattsup
I think the number is probably a 1 900 number.
No one has done this since except me? ........Ooooo Kay.
OVER-EFFICIENCY / OVER-UNITY - Six of one and half a dozen of the other - unless you are talking about donuts then six and a half.
Jesus was hung? !!!!!!!!!!!!!?????
Old science - new science? I was schooled in both and I still must locate and wade through the BS both have in them.
@Dante/NG
If you really have something then I wish you the best of luck and God's speed.
I don't have that much so I must continue frying coils until I find one that works without parting my hair(it won't be long and I'll not worry about that anymore!).
Here I learned quickly if you can't provide proof - there is absolutely no point in making a claim. It doesn't matter why you can't or won't provide proof.
These folks ARE very open minded but the task here must also be based in reality, reproducible, provable and open-source. In my experience if you go any other way you will likely just.... go away.
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
@ring-theory
Come on man. Tone it down will ya.
Ok Just for you. :P
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
.
1) Why are there so many dollars signs on the web site. Money - Money - Money all over. Asked another way. Who's intelligent idea was it to associate something as profound as all the claims Dant? is making with so much emphasis on money.
Because its a charity, thats what they do, ask for donations of money to be put to a good cause.
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
2) Such a way of selling your idea to the world is like Sunday TV preachers. We'll save you, so send us your money.
I am sorry do you disagree with the format and I am open to suggestions.
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
3) Come on. How stupid do you think we are here. This type of marketing may work on Mr. Regular but here, there is no place.
I guess I actually thought you were smarter, this is a win win oppurtunity, but you guys can't seem to see wood for the trees.
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
4) The other day someone came here to offer 10 million dollars if someone will show OU. We told him to go fly a kite. We won't flinch.
And I was getting the feeling this site was pro "open source". ???
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
5) Why does a not-for-profit organization own a for profit organization. Nice.
Good question, I will find out!
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
6) What is the mission statement of this NFPO. How can we see a financial statement that confirms it is in fact doing so with the money.
To help the poor and distressed, stop global warming, stop power outages, lower the cost of every other type of energy, remove the stranglehold the middle east and their oil have on our country, etc.
Get their I.D. number and you can, besides reading the approval letter on this site, I bet with little effort one could find the entire 155 page Application. http://www.onegift4power.org/IRS.html (http://www.onegift4power.org/IRS.html)
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
What I think is this.
You and Dant? should go back to your board of directors and figure out a more serious way of "spreading the word". You should also target your marketing to another type of group or forum. Here, as soon as we see Money - Money - Money, you're a goner.
So, if you want to talk about a fact of life, the above is a fact of life. Now you can spend your days pounding your hammer on an anvil. Then we here would simply say, good luck.
On the other hand, if there is something to show concretely, please feel welcome to discuss it in the language of your choice.
Also, if all that Dant? is stating is a theory, then this is alright. We see theories here everyday. Life is a theory. But don't pass for fact what cannot be corroborated.
There is a time and place for everything and this fund drive is nearing its end.
I am not going to miss the oppurtunity of a lifetime and I guess if you have never donated to charity you will never understand, until you do.
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 23, 2007, 07:55:08 PMThere is a time and place for everything and this fund drive is nearing its end.
How come he still asks for $2,000,000 for any individual to
*see* his invention? It's crazy!
NG,
Regarding Dante's comments about my post;
It's unfortunate that he must stoop to such levels to make his point...that is if there was a point.
So, Navigator, you are not connected with Dante in any way, right?
?Right on the money, Sir!? ;D
(My English is very poor. Should I say 'Right to the money, Sir'? ???)
In fact, this looks more and more like the well-known all-explicative and universe-existential lead-out theory.
It?s marvelous in essence but? infantile in substance and it produces nothing but futile discussions and insults.
I?ve kindly asked Stefan on page 1 of the initial thread ?onegift4power? to mark it as a fraud and I strooongly keep my position day by day, post by post, page by page. There are already ten pages and counting?
Meanwhile, the great Bernoulli is turning around into his grave asking himself wtf is Dante?!
Tinu
Quote from: z_p_e on August 23, 2007, 08:12:40 PM
NG,
Regarding Dante's comments about my post;
It's unfortunate that he must stoop to such levels to make his point...that is if there was a point.
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?I think that was his point, however I agree he is sometimes over coarse :D. People like Dante are the way they are for a reason, they think, talk, act uniquely and often it comes across abrasively, but more often than not it is unintended. I think after nearly fifty years of this, at the age of 72, he has lost his patients and can't say that I blame him.
Quote from: Iosh on August 23, 2007, 08:02:37 PM
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 23, 2007, 07:55:08 PMThere is a time and place for everything and this fund drive is nearing its end.
How come he still asks for $2,000,000 for any individual to *see* his invention? It's crazy!
I said it was nearing its end, only Dante really knows.
Because he has a ME and a Physics professor who both say his powerplants will revolutionize energy as we know it today.
Why would those two put their neck on the line for a scam?
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 08:49:05 PM
So, Navigator, you are not connected with Dante in any way, right?
?Right on the money, Sir!? ;D
(My English is very poor. Should I say 'Right to the money, Sir'? ???)
Other than E-mail, the desire to stop global warming and releasing the grip the middle east has on our country because of oil, no.
EDIT, oh and the fact that my donation has already secured my fist right of refusal to get a license to lease the first powerplant in my area. ;D
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 08:49:05 PM
In fact, this looks more and more like the well-known all-explicative and universe-existential lead-out theory.
It?s marvelous in essence but? infantile in substance and it produces nothing but futile discussions and insults.
I can think of a few discoveries that were seen in that light prior to being proven fact.
Quote from: tinu on August 23, 2007, 08:49:05 PM
I?ve kindly asked Stefan on page 1 of the initial thread ?onegift4power? to mark it as a fraud and I strooongly keep my position day by day, post by post, page by page. There are already ten pages and counting?
Meanwhile, the great Bernoulli is turning around into his grave asking himself wtf is Dante?!
Tinu
I am sorry you feel that way, what was that phrase Einstein used to say? :P
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 23, 2007, 09:07:51 PM
I can think of a few discoveries that were seen in that light prior to being proven fact.
Here is a great discovery of our times: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3086.0/topicseen.html
Read it and tell about it to Dante. Tell him either to patent his idea, if any (which I strongly doubt), or to present it in scientific peer-review or to simply submit it to public scrutiny but stop trying mutilating any great scientist of our history for money, in a day-light huge fraud!
If you can not follow the above thread and still concerned about the oil issue, it?s probably best to take a job in farming and produce your own bio-diesel. It would be much more productive, take my word for it.
Apart for what was already said, the whole story you promote is plain BS and someone should stop this thread asap.
Please, Stefan, take our pain here off!
Tinu
Quote from: Navi-gator on August 23, 2007, 08:51:03 PM
Quote from: z_p_e on August 23, 2007, 08:12:40 PM
NG,
Regarding Dante's comments about my post;
It's unfortunate that he must stoop to such levels to make his point...that is if there was a point.
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?
I think that was his point, however I agree he is sometimes over coarse :D. People like Dante are the way they are for a reason, they think, talk, act uniquely and often it comes across abrasively, but more often than not it is unintended. I think after nearly fifty years of this, at the age of 72, he has lost his patients and can't say that I blame him.
OMG! This is funny!
"People like Dante are the way they are for a reason, they think, talk, act uniquely and often it comes across abrasively, but more often than not it is unintended."
Sorry buddy, but I have a diagnosed disorder that has to do with unintended rudeness. To me, Dante just acts stupid. Somebody who won't even attempt to join a forum obviously has something to hide. Whether it be his precious, or his scam, he isn't even attempting to help this forum out. This thread has done nothing but cause retardation. TESLA WAS NOT LIKE DANTE AT ALL.
TO PUT THE OVER-UNITY QUESTION TO REST, ONCE AND FOR ALL. BY DANTE A. DONATELLI JR.
Since this thread has been up, dozens and dozens of nay Sayers have answered it.
MY statement was, and still is: ?there is no such thing as OVER-UNITY, in any device, machine and especially, NOT in any Power Plant?
Now, in as simple of terms as I can, I will explain our ?SOLID-POWER? Technologically designed Power Plants, using simple scientific terms, not the erroneous and unproven one?s that are drudged up from men?s minds!
Our Power Plants RUN THEMSELVES, with no added fuel, and PROVE, WITHOUT BLOVIATING or USING PHRASE THAT ARE ONLY IN MEN?S MINDS, and have been for centuries, BUT CANNOT BE PROVED, ?over-unity? doesn?t exist, but rather ?OVER-EFFICIENCY? exists!
Specifically speaking, the EM-5000 Power Plant ONEGIFT4POWER was given.
The EM-500 starts with a 10HP Electric Motor, because according to engineering principles, already proven, a 10HP Electric Motor can run, at full capacity, a 5000 watt Electrical Generator.
This 10HP uses 7450 watts of ELECTRICAL ENERGY, (the FIRST (1), energy system of this power plant, followed by four more, as the EM-5000 uses ?5- energy systems within itself.) This electrical energy is CONVERTED to 5500 foot-pounds of MECHANICAL ENERGY, (2).
THIS IS THE 100% UNITY, OF THIS MOTOR and IN FACT, THE ENTIRE POWER PLANT. THIS IS all that is needed to start, from a dead stop, the Power Plant. 7450 watts, converted to 5500 foot-pounds!
Once the EM -5000 is operating, at full speed, the 10HP motor, has the watts REDUCED to 745 watts, and the converted mechanical energy, as well, is REDUCED to 550 foot-pounds. NOW, the INPUT of electrical energy is 90% LESS than UNITY! WE NEVER ADD TO UNITY, ERGO, OVER-UNITY NEVER EXISTS, BUT WE ADD TO THE REDUCED UNITY,? TO BRING ALL,? BACK UP TO UNITY.
Understand that WE REDUCE the INPUT ELECTRICAL ENERGY from 100% UNITY to 90% of the 100% UNITY, only 10% of UNITY is being used, and converted once the Power Plant is up to speed!
The innovative mechanics we use, and the solid matter object fuel, and the speed we use, ALL, DEVELOP 4950 foot-pounds of our innovative MECHANICAL ENERGY (3), according to the 1807 and 1857 ENERGY discoveries made by old science, not Dante, as ENERGY and POWER CAN BE DEVELOPED, (as one idiot stated that he rolled a ball, and developed energy and power, AND HE WAS RIGHT. A rolling ball can indeed, JUST LIKE A ROLLING AUTOMOBILE, develop energy and power, BUT IT CANNOT BE EXTRACTED, ergo, is a stupid example!)
This 4950 foot-pounds, the 90% of UNITY, is added to the 550 foot-pounds, the 10% of UNITY, ALL in a flywheel, which holds the 100% UNITY of that which this Power Plant needs and uses, (not that the flywheel couldn?t hold more, as the most it could hold, is the 100% of the FLYWHEELS CAPACITY, but not necessarily the 100% of the EM-5000?s capacity.)
The flywheel, delivers the added, sum of the 100% UNITY, 5500 foot-pounds of common, convertible MECHANICAL ENERGY (4), to the Electrical Generator, which converts it into the 100% UNITY of the OUTPUT, the 5000 watts of ELECTRICAL ENERGY (5), thus completing the ?5- ENERGY SYSTEM of the EM-5000 Power Plant.
SO, the 100% UNITY of the OUTPUT, electrical energy of the ELECTRICAL GENERATOR, can in fact deliver the 10% of UNITY the INPUT needs, when running, and have 90% left over to accomplish other electrical energy needed work outside the Power Plant.
ANY WAY THIS IS MEASURED or CALCULATED, it works out to be ?OVER-EFFICIENT?, and NEVER ?OVER-UNITY?.
100% UNITY in any device, machine or Power Plant, in fact in ANY SCENARIO can NEVER BE MORE THAN 100% of that device, machine, etc. YES, it can first be reduced, then added to, then back up to 100%, BUT, 100% can NEVER BE ADDED TO.
The error is that in ALL the erroneous thinking and erroneous believing, that if and when they FIND A FREE ENERGY, and claim OVER-UNITY, what is really happening is the FREE ENERGY THEY DISCOVERED, THAT OPERATES THEIR DEVICE(S), IS ACTUAL THE 100% OF THAT FREE ENERGY, AND IF MORE IS USED, THAT and the BEGINNING, is the TOTAL 100% FREE ENERGY USED.
UNITY,?100% OF ANYTHING,? CANNOT BE EXCEED,? OR THAT WHICH IS CLAIMED AS OVER-UNITY,? IS IN FACT,?.THE ACTUAL 100% UNITY.
NOW, THE BIG QUESTION FOR ALL!
CAN YOU RELATE a SCENARIO of any DEVICE, MACHINE or POWER PLANT, USING SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC TERMS and UNITS of MEASUREMENTS - ENERGY and POWER, ANY ENERGY and POWER, WHETHER FREE, REDUCED, DEVELOPED, ADDED, OR EVEN FOUND IN or ON the GROUND, IN the AIR, or EVEN CREATED, THAT YOU OWN or HAVE EVER HEARD OF.
OR, ARE YOU STILL GOING TO TELL US, WITH STUPID RHETORIC, WHY WE ARE WRONG?
If NOT, then I AM RIGHT. PERIOD!
There is no such thing as ?OVER-UNITY?. Period!
Dante
Go ahead, continue to miss use that definition. I don't care if you continue to look stupid anymore. The simple matter is, you don't know what your saying.
Dante,
I was going to stop posting anything further here because it is quite evident that neither can see each other's perspective and make any sense of it.
OK, let's call a truce. In fact, I will concede to you, and you can use whatever terminology you wish; that fact is it does not matter one iota.
You know why? Because to me the meat of the matter in this whole discussion is folks getting hung up on terminology. It's just semantics. The wording is not nearly as important as whether you can produce hardware that operates as you claim.
That IS ALL that really matters.
I do not dispute that you have what you claim or not. Fact is anyone can come forward and say what you have. The proof is in the pudding however. Do you have any proof? Video perhaps?
Engineer reports add credence, but they do not constitute a seal of approval.
So you make a claim of "free energy" or whatever you want to call it...."over-efficiency"....there I said it....I'll probably go to techy hell now...LOL. Good for you, I wish you best of luck with your device and bringing an end to the world's energy problems. When can the world see a demonstration? Why can't we buy one? Will you patent?
Cheers my friend. Relax will ya? There's no reason to be get excited right?
We can all go on our merry ways.
Darren
.
If there was no over unity, there would be no existence,all through the universe and all of its manifestations leading right to the way the earth manifests which is apart of it.
Looking at the scientific atom, it spins right,what makes that spin?
the earth still spins right - what exactly makes that spin?
to what makes that spin , will lead to the first cause,which would be zillions of years in measurement.
you want to find something that spins that can be converted to electric like a generator right?
well that's your first clue to finding overunity, if you find out why the little circles keep spinning again and again around the big atom, you a little closer to finding overunity.
That is my point.
So, will Dante show anything remotely similar to proof or will he continue discussing definitions like he was an Encyclopaedia Britannica collaborator?
The world won't get any power from his bad temper and megalomania, though if there was a way we sure would have excess energy for centuries.
a Low temperature Stirling could power a led as for heat but over unity does exist.
Quote from: wattsup on August 22, 2007, 10:08:02 PM
5) Why does a not-for-profit organization own a for profit organization. Nice.
The object of the not NFP is to help the poor and distressed by giving free energy. The FP owned by the NFP provides capitol to operate without depending on the contributers to make regular donations.
Quote
Dante Donatelli
All the cynics so far, have said, "if your giving the World a free gift, THEN GIVE IT TO THEM, and SHUT UP". We had to clarify this stupid thinking, as NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD GIVE THE ACTUAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, FREE TO THE WORLD, WHEN IT'S WORTH A TRILLION DOLLARS, IN FOUR INDUSTRIES. Sorry I am shouting, but this upsets me. Instaed of PROVEING their points, the cynics raise stupid points of contention.
ONEGIFT4POWER doesn't have the expertise to operate a hundred billion dollar Technology, in the Global marketplace, dealing with very expert entities, power brokers, and others, as Dante is 72, who could have handled this twenty to thirty years ago, doesn't want to get involved. "CEDCO" will have a Board of Directors, which Dante is the Chairman of the Board. The expert management team "CEDCO" will hire, has to perform to the pleasure of the Board of Directors, or they go. "CEDCO" will be dealing with some mean business people, and the people Dante has lined up to begin the second activity of ONEGIFT4POWER, cannot handle this. EXPERTS CAN, and "CEDCO" will hire the best!
The best thing ONEGIFT4POWER could have done, is own their own Marketing Corporation, that will have an experienced management team. These will License, Lease and Develop Electrical Power Plants, FOR A PROFIT. PLUS, the Marketing Corporation CAN OFFER what ONEGIFT4POWER cannot, by law, (another great reason I started this for-profit corporation, "CEDCO", pure genious, from GOD,) and if one reads www.cedco-marketing.com (http://www.cedco-marketing.com), they will understand what it is that is being offered.
This leaves ONEGIFT4POWER to do what they wish, and that is to be a perpetual charity, doing good for Americans.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 24, 2007, 09:31:48 PM
Dante,
When can the world see a demonstration? Why can't we buy one? Will you patent?
Darren
QuotePhase ONE; to raise all the funds needed to carry out Phase Two, Three and to start Phase Four! A total of only 3.8, million, from a possible 6 billion people, world-wide, will be raised, and then the Fund Drive will be closed, and Phase Two will start. Donations will continue to be taken in, but will. not count for the
?SEVEN +2 SATISFACTION? (Located on our HOME PAGE) that the Fund Drive contributors will receive.
Phase TWO; the propagation of the GIFT, including re-construction, SIX World Class TESTING LABS secured to report that the Power Plant is performing as claimed, running itself electrically and furnishing electricity for sale or use outside of the system. Six are being used, because cynics will say one, or two, or even three, or as many as five could be bribed, BUT six are of 24 world wide, IRREFUTABLE PROOF, and THEN get ready for Phase Three.
Phase THREE; To have one of the Greatest World Introduction Events ever, with some of the worlds greatest Physicists, Mechanical Engineers, Electrical Engineers, ALL THOSE WHO WANT TO COME OF OUR CONTRIBUTORS, plus the NEWS MEDIA FROM EVERY CORNER OF THE WORLD, EVERY MEDIA, INCLUDING MAGAZINE, NEWSPAPER, TV., ETC., plus as many CEO?s of Corporations who will want to do business with CEDCO.
The rest of the five phase plan can be found here...
http://www.onegift4power.org/MoreInformation.html (http://www.onegift4power.org/MoreInformation.html)
QuoteNo Patents yet for a number of reasons:
Copyrights, YES.
First, Patents are NOT what everyone thinks they are. They protect NOTHING if a country wants to STEAL TECHNOLOGY of which there are at least 100 or so who are engaged in this, as you are reading this. They steal intellectual property every chance they get.
Patent only last 17 years, but most start infringing at 14 to 15 years. If Dante would have Patented anything 42 years ago, guess what? If he would have started Patenting 10 years ago, we would only have say 5 years, and this isn?t enough.
A Patent will be applied for on the GIFT, once it has been Introduced to the World and Marketing started. In this way, the Patent office will have to accept the application, especially when they can view the full scale Power Plant operating right before their eyes. (Today, the Patent Office will not even accept an application for what Dante claims, no matter who says what in the way of credibility, unless they see a working Power Plant. After it is Introduced to the World and after six irrefutable testing labs say what it is doing, they will have to accept an application, especially when a Power Plant is sitting at the curb of their building in Arlington, VA..)
Now, to educate those who do not know.
The Patent process isn?t today, what it was just twenty years ago, or better yet, 40 years ago
Since Nafta and Gafta and all the other Afta?s being considered, the Patent process has in fact gotten weaker and weaker in our country. We used to have the best Patent protection in the world. Today, as with all global situations, we have weakened our laws to accommodate the World!
Things like ?first to file? are coming on board, if not already on board. This is where ANYONE who has the knowledge can file FIRST, as long as the inventor is listed. (Another reason why no secrets will be given. Any who have the secrets can be a first filer and own the Patent, although the inventor is mentioned, they can operate with the Patent because they will own it according to the new rules in place, or being contemplated). The Patent can, for the first time in American history, be owned by someone other than the inventor, who historically had to sign the Patent application and he or she would then automatically own the Patent when issued.
Other weakening devices have been put in, or are about to be put in. The Japanese, for years, made the APPLICATION public, just two years after the application was filed. The American way was to NOT make anything public, until a Patent was issued. In fact, the word PATENT simply means TO MAKE PUBLIC, so an applications is NOT a Patent, but most in the world?s governments, want to make everything public so it can be stolen, used or otherwise infringed on as soon as possible. In some countries, the Patent process is a sham!
Our government wants to be GLOBAL so they are weakening our Patent laws to be at the low levels of the world. The way the Japanese do it, anyone who wants to get a jump on stealing the work, can. In fact, another thing few know, more money is spent in the U.S.A. in trying to break through Patents than in the Patent process itself.
Dante knows more about Patents than most who write them.
In fact, another thing few know, and especially in the case of the GIFT, will surely happen, the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense are notified, IMMEDIATELY after an application which effects both these is filed, even before the Patent office acts on the application. In this way, THEY CAN CLASSIFY IT AND THE PATENT NEVER GETS ISSUED or even never gets processed for that matter. Our plan, will circumvent this, as the World will know the Technology exists, before they get a chance to classify it.
There are other negative conditions that go along with Patents, so will wait for the very last minute before Marketing probably, before we file for a Patent.
Dante owns some 4 Copyrighted booklets that have to do with his Technology, and is about to Copyright TWO more, of which we own 10% of these, as Dante gave us one Power Plant out of ten he owned, and this means that 10% OF WHAT ELSE HE OWNS BY WAY OF THE Technology, belongs to us, and we own the ?first right of refusal? for the other nine, if we accomplish what we are setting out to do.
Dante,
Good luck with your fund-raising and promotions. I wish you well. Sounds like you have a plan (albeit a little complex), it's just a matter of implementing it. Presumably you're part of the way through already anyway.
I agree with you 100% on the patent system and process. It is a joke and a sham, and doesn't protect your IP at all. I like your idea of waiting until the last minute to apply for your patent though.
Any idea on a time frame for each phase?
I do think though that it would be easier to spread a gift through open source. I mean gifts are free, right?
Quote from: HopeForHumanity on August 26, 2007, 01:57:51 AM
I do think though that it would be easier to spread a gift through open source. I mean gifts are free, right?
Ha! Didn't you read? Dante said:
All the cynics so far, have said, "if your giving the World a free gift, THEN GIVE IT TO THEM, and SHUT UP". We had to clarify this stupid thinking, as NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD GIVE THE ACTUAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF THE TECHNOLOGY, FREE TO THE WORLD, WHEN IT'S WORTH A TRILLION DOLLARS, IN FOUR INDUSTRIES.There you have your answer. Gifts are given in exchange for big cash apparently. But I won't discuss the meaning of
gift or we'll end getting another 5 pages of semantics arguments.
Quote from: z_p_e on August 25, 2007, 11:10:01 PM
Dante,
Good luck with your fund-raising and promotions. I wish you well. Sounds like you have a plan (albeit a little complex), it's just a matter of implementing it. Presumably you're part of the way through already anyway.
I agree with you 100% on the patent system and process. It is a joke and a sham, and doesn't protect your IP at all. I like your idea of waiting until the last minute to apply for your patent though.
Any idea on a time frame for each phase?
QuoteDarren:
Because you replied in the calm and courteous manner you did, I will spend some time answering your concerns.
In a way your right, wording doesn't make a difference, as you say tomato and I say tomoto, but, they mean the same, in many humans eyes.
But if you look at the World, the "over-unity" phrase goes against all that science thinks, ergo, the reason why they are against anyone who uses this term.
It really doesn't matter, in the long run, but if one wants to live in this World, as I have done, and I wanted to get at least TWO expert scientific opinions, I had to listen to what my PhD.'s had to say, to get what I needed.
It wasn't easy getting two scientific experts to even listen to me, and if I would have used the term "over-unity", they wouldn't even have talked to me,let alone the positive reports I recieved, but they did only for one reason.
They knew I was right by what I showed them. They, being as honest as they could, couldn't beat me down, as I was right, so they had to validate that which they did.
When I re-construct the EM-5000, the only Power Plant in the World that will run itself, electrically, and supply electrical energy for other work, I will have 6 irrefutable testing labs, and there are 24 or so in the World, that if THEY SAY it is working as claimed, NO ONE in the World can go against these, as these are World class experts and recognized by the World as such.
This is the ireffutable proof you speak of, BUT, I will not show it to anyone, except those who help us. I have no reason to do otherwise, as I have been validated by two of the best, and thats all I needed. If entities do not believe these, they wouldn't believe 100 or 1000.
Now, about if I am right or not, as you say.
You find any other man's work, that is as complete as mine, that can explain it like I do, and can even explain the Old Science that made my work possible, plus I explain, as well as I can without giving secrets away, the New Science I use!
I do not think you will be able to, simply because what I have discovered is a totally New Science not understood by anyone yet, but I am not trying to make all understand, just the few we need to join us, and then, science and the rest of the World will get in in a few decades or so.
But, even that aside, I don't expect, because of the cynical World we live in, for anyone to believe it, EXCEPT those who join us for their own reasons.
I have another ace up my sleeve, but I hesitate to tell you about it, but rest assured, we have one entity on our side, that NO ONE in the World can beat on.
The point is: No one can disprove anything I say, either my New Science or the Old Science it came from. Yes, they can come up with cynical remarks, but no one can prove it with facts, as I prove what I need to with facts. And you do know, a fact is only a fact, if it can be researched!
Can I expect YOU to make a healthy contribution and join us as a friend?
Now, to answer your other questions, as I am spending time to explain things to you, because you are the first gentleman to put things into a conversation mode, and not a stupid cynical mode.
We will Introduce the technology and Power Plant to the World, when our fund-drive is complete, and we re-construct the EM-5000, to run itself as I claim. Sorry, if this doesn't meet with your time table, but your talking to a 72 year old man, who has spent near 50 years with this technology, and I don't mind waiting another year or two, GOD willing.
NO, you will NEVER buy a Power Plant, because we are going to LEASE them! We have to keep the secrets as long as we can, and although if we lose one Power Plant design, I have nine others to beat the first one. Any competition will always, for at least thirty or so, years, be behind our Licensees..
The point is, there are millions out there who will reverse engineer, if we sell them one. They have the right to do anything they want with it, if they own it. BUT, if we own it, protect it and make sure all units are accounted for, even the big Power Plants will be owned by Licensees and they will, as well, protect the technology, BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO PAY ALOT for their Licenses.
That brings me to your last question. NO, we or I will not Patent any Power Plant.
Reason being, if I would have Patened it ten years ago, my time would be running out, and the World's Power Brokers and dictaotors and thieving countries, would have the design plans for their own use, say like the Chinese who do not recognize American or any other countries Patents.
When the time is right, and that is the day a Licensee breaks ground on the first large scale Power Plant, HE will Patent it, and HE will own it, and HE will protect it, and his seventeen year period will start about three years after he files the first Patent, so he will get the maximum time allowed by law, to earn a profit, before it is ripped off.
There are some on the market who now have Patents, I agree, but these are not powerful enough to solve the Worlds needs and wants, ergo, they will not get ripped off, BUT when our technology is known, it will shake the very foundations of physics, upset economies, and be very, very valuable to those who own Licenses for them.
There's not much more I can say, and thank you for your good wishes, and I hope to see your name on our contribution list, tomorow!
Dante..
Nice business plan - if you started it...
I'm unfortunately rather convinced that IF the science of TheGift is true, then their business plan will give Dante the same fame&fortune as e.g. Stanley Meyer, Edvin Gray, T.H Moray et.al...
Which is exactly the status quo that our governing powers want.
However, giving away full disclosure licensed through GPL (or similar) would make him a true household name for decades to come and probable give him a $1.5Million cash gift through the Noble Prize.
If not before, he'll probably wish on his deathbed that he'd have chosen the second option...
G'day all,
The whole Dante business sounds like a scam to me. Vague promises, outrageous claims that no-one can verify and a hand open to collect cash.
Hans von Lieven