The paradox of overunity

[HeairBear]

GRAVITY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxn3WEGFaxE

[pauldude000]

I will break this down as best as I possibly can and as simplified as I can.


First law of thermodynamics. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"


Second "You cannot get more energy out of a closed system than you put in"


COP "Co-efficient of power or ratio of power in to power out"


Problem: Energy is not power. Power is a ratio of energy over time. Energy = joules..... power = watts

These all tie together with the concept of OU in that OU by definition = COP > 1, or power in > power out...... which as noted by the original poster accurately as not possible. Please don't jump to conclusions just yet. (That has been happening recently.)

For COP > 1, then a valid unaccounted for or 'external' energy source is present but not accounted for, not a case of energy being created.


When accounted for, then COP <= 1. Simple logic.


True OU means there is NO external energy source.


Even people claiming 'crystal power' as the energy source for their device are claiming an external energy source, and are MISCLAIMING OU, due to the common misuse of the term. (I am not even berating them for claiming it either, before someone gets defensive.) If you claim ANYTHING as an outside power source, then you are NOT claiming OU.


Logically, claiming OU is equivalent to the admission of not knowing what the external power source actually is, which would be a better admission than claiming what it is not.


However, to claim OU... AND claim an external power source at the same time is to apply circular logic. You cannot have both at the same time.


Here is some advice.... the phrase "I don't know. I cannot account for the extraneous energy present but I postulate that it might be"...


Do this, and you won't sound like a fake. It seems like everybody wants to automatically state ZPE, mass energy, or whatever.... What becomes quickly evident is that they are hoping or at best guessing ZPE, mass energy, or whatever, and also that they are B.Sing. It immediately throws doubt in ones mind at this point, and the whole concept becomes more and more dubious. It throws the initial claim itself in doubt.


Before anybody thinks this has anything to do with "the burden of proof", "extraordinary claims", etc.... This has NOTHING to do with that. First of all, trials are for a courtroom, of which the term "proof" belongs. Science is not law, and there is no such fallacy as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  If that were true, then MOST popularly accepted theories would be on trial today. It is selectively applied, and is non-scientific in nature.


The reason for admission has EVERYTHING to do with interpersonal human interaction. You lie to someone, and they tend to think of you as a liar...... It's that simple. Just as you will think that of someone whom lies to you in your own house, face to face. You cannot put much trust in them, and will become skeptical of anything they claim after that point.


It is OK to be both honest and wrong, as it is a common human trait. Saying "I was wrong", is only a bad thing to a person whom has an inflated ego.


I have been wrong many times, and will be again. That is called being human.


Yet no-one can say I intentionally lied to them, and amazingly enough that often earns something called respect. I do not expect agreement, just honest evaluation of what I put forth.


Think about it.


Paul Andrulis