Over Unity (how to get there}

[tinman]

@ Floor
Why try and speculate on the impossible-OU.
Would you not get a lot further looking  into the probable?.

You have fact's from which you can start.
1-Energy cannot be destroyed
2-Energy cannot be created
3-Energy CAN be transformed.

There is no doubt that there exist unlimited amounts of energy throughout the universe,and this energy cannot be destroyed-only transformed.
I am quite supprised that no one(including myself) hasnt looked further into the slingshot effect-used to build up speed of space craft around planets and suns. We know this works. It's a mater of taking the available energy provided by nature,and transforming it into something we can use.

We have done this already,in the way of solar pannel's. 60 years ago,this would have been a wonderous device,but today it is only an everyday device,because we understand how it work's.

I guess people choose the word !Overunity!,because we already have many free energy devices-devices powered by nature.

So if we are to use the word overunity,there first needs to be a definition of the word.
Looking on the net,we see no definition from wikipedia-it go's straight to purpetual motion.
So should we make a definition ourself?.

Overunity device>-A device that provides a greater output than the input provided by man.

Problem with the above,is that we already have devices that fit the above definition.

So i think maybe you need to decide what OU is,befor any other plans are made.

[Qwert]

@tinman, in reply #4 you said:
"There is no such thing as overunity-as energy cannot be created. There for,no device can put out more energy than it consumes,which= no overunity device."

while in reply #10 you said something exactly opposite:
"Overunity device>-A device that provides a greater output than the input provided by man.

Problem with the above,is that we already have devices that fit the above definition." (my emphasis in both sentences)
So, where is the truth? When you were more drunk: while writing reply #4 or #10? No such thing as overunity? But overunity devices we have?? Where?

[telecom]

I think this device can be classified as overunity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_Robotics#Wave_Glider

[tinman]

@tinman, in reply #4 you said:
"There is no such thing as overunity-as energy cannot be created. There for,no device can put out more energy than it consumes,which= no overunity device."

while in reply #10 you said something exactly opposite:
"Overunity device>-A device that provides a greater output than the input provided by man.

Problem with the above,is that we already have devices that fit the above definition." (my emphasis in both sentences)
So, where is the truth? When you were more drunk: while writing reply #4 or #10? No such thing as overunity? But overunity devices we have?? Where?

Qwert
Please read again,and if understanding dosnt come your way,then it is you that has perhaps had too much to drink.

Quote : Overunity device>-A device that provides a greater output than the input provided by man.

You did see the last 3 words,didnt you Qwert?-PROVIDED BY MAN.
Meaning any more than what man put into the device ,has to come from some where else.

I also did not state that overunity devices we already have. This was your incorrect termination.
My statement was-Quote: Problem with the above,is that we already have devices that fit the above definition.
Meaning-Fits the above definition of what we might precieve as overunity.

The system that would fit the above definition-solar power setups on home's,with grid tie inverters.
Man provides so much of the energy,and the sun provides the rest.
More energy being consumed than man provided.

Is it realy that hard to understand Qwert?.

[Qwert]

Is it realy that hard to understand Qwert?.

It's not hard to understand. You made some description errors which allow to such understanding. and it is still incorrect: in that meaning, all the generators which convert any non-electric energy into electric, are overunity. What does that mean: "provided by man"? Be more specific. Which definition exactly those devices fit?
You know, it's an art to write in a way understandable to all, not just for the author. And your response to my reply is an evidence that I do it correctly. Or, you are just more brilliant, over me. It would be good if others judge this.