Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[MarkE]

MarkE hasn't been here a long time, as his high post count would otherwise suggest.  His registration to this forum was on January 9, of 2014.  However, his high post count (2,149) in such a very short period of time (less than 5 months) is highly reflective of his true nature for being here.  He is trolling this forum, and a bad troll at that, as evidence by the high volume and poor quality of his posts.  You will find in many of his posts a concept called, "argument by assertion".  Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.  He also uses a technique called "psychological projection", which is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Gravock

You are free to counter with valid arguments against any arguments of mine you disagree with, including any that you think are based on logical fallacies.

[Khwartz]

No he is correct.  The amount of energy that we supply from well to wheel is less than the petrol fuel supplies.  The COP is therefore greater than 1.My yard, your yard, some oil field in Nigeria, it doesn't matter where the oil starts.  What matters is how much energy we get out versus how much we supply Slow down there, this is the whole point:  COP > 1 does not mean over unity.Here in the USA, colleges teach COP means:  Heat moved divided by the useful energy consumed to move it.

So, if you have so great misconceptions there, I will not hire you guys in my enterprises.

I had already this kind of discussion with the best scientists in France on the most popular but very rigourous one of Futura-Science and they recognised their confusion.

Anyway, the term "onvernuty": comes historically to design COPs. Then it has been used with all this great confusion of you all there between overunity COPs and hypothetical ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY (respect to the whole universe), or "RELATIVE" overunity PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY (respect to a specific, restrained, part of the universe).

But just continue your way if you like so! I no more care and said what I had to say. It is not me who will in go in the wrong direction. I may teach your teachers there anyway...

Cheers and bye for now.

[SeaMonkey]

MarkE hasn't been here a long time, as his high post count would otherwise suggest.  His registration to this forum was on January 9, of 2014.  However, his high post count (2,149) in such a very short period of time (less than 5 months) is highly reflective of his true nature for being here.  He is trolling this forum, and a bad troll at that, as evidence by the high volume and poor quality of his posts.  You will find in many of his posts a concept called, "argument by assertion".  Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely asserting that it is true, regardless of contradiction.  He also uses a technique called "psychological projection", which is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.

Gravock

One can only wonder what sort of revelations will
manifest in the future.  What you're suggesting is
certainly within the realm of possibility.  The internet
has made possible the evolution of numerous species
of "Forum Men" who exhibit unusual traits.  Not to
mention that we're presently living in The Age of The
Lie and Disinformation for Fun and Profit...

[Khwartz]

If a device is OU, it must have an efficiency of over 100%.  Any efficiency over 100% is undefined as net output is possible with no input, the exact thing that we want from OU.  Mr. Murray-Smith's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not some yet to be discovered energy source is OU or a previously unidentified energy source.  If the source has the properties of inexhaustibility, and very low, ideally zero, operating cost then that energy source has the properties that we want from something that is OU.That is a reasonable enough assumption.  It leads to more or less two paths that I can see:  Either declare that searching for OU is a futile endeavor, or simply allowing that whatever is ultimately determined, OU is a convenient term to describe the properties of the kind of desirable new energy source that we would like to find.Unfortunately, it removes the distinction between what we want:  plentiful, cheap, clean new energy source(s) and things we would rather get past such as fossil fuels.  Personally, I do not object to the idea that if anything ever appears OU that it ultimately will almost certainly to be proven otherwise.Do you mean some other overunity site than this one?I think that there are many people who would disagree with us about the transient nature of anything that might appear OU staying that way.  One could qualify the term and say "apparent OU".  I do not think that is necessary and I don't think it adds much in the way of clarity.  It could inspire flame wars between camps who think that the First Law is violable and those who don't.  If a rich relative pays all my bills, then from my point of view everything in the world is free.COP and efficiency are both well defined.  "Free energy" has many interpretations.  In my experience:  OU is commonly understood to mean an energy source that appears to produce more than it consumes.  Some might object to the "appears" qualifier.  I don't see any value in quibbling about that until such a day as something that seems like a working OU machine appears on the scene.Mostly, yes, but there are exceptions.  Consider something like rocket fuel.  We put a lot more energy into making the rocket fuel then we get out of it.  The form of the fuel, its energy density, power density, etc matter more than the efficiency.I think you will find common agreement that each has a COP > 1.  I think that only a small minority would call either is OU.

Saying an device is "OU" or "overunity" means NOTHING in itselt; that is the basic error.

To be correct, one has to precise what one qualifies of "OU" or "overunity": is that a COP or it that a PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY? !

Then, if it is COP, needs to use the right and "on purpose" definition for industrial view.

Then, if PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY, needs to specify THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SYSTEM, and WHICH PARTS OF THE UNIVERSE WE ALLOW US TO CONSIDER.

Unless these specifications are made, nobody knows of what he or she is talking about.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Hi, many of us confound COP and Overunity, I define Overunity as an apparatus that violate the conservation law (first and second) and can create or destroy energy.
Also efficiency is different from COP, you can have a COP of 10 but an overall efficiency of 20% in the end you will get a COP=2 (10*0.2).
So LENR, solar, RF harnessing are not truly OU device since they doesn't create or cohere energy out of nothing.
Also if possible to create energy, the exact reverse must be true (destruction of energy).

Edit: You know about the Dark energy ? She is OU according to our theory.
Our universe expand, but the energy density for a given volume stay exactly the same, so the overall energy increase perpetually, this an example of a truly overunity system which involve creation of energy.