The truth about "overunity".

[Navi-gator]

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...

there 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

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.

[ring_theory]

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.   

[z_p_e]

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.

[z_p_e]

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

[Navi-gator]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?