The truth about "overunity".

[z_p_e]

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.

[armagdn03]

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!

[armagdn03]

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!

[daking]

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

[OneGift4Power Supporter]

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.