The truth about "overunity".

[z_p_e]

If you read the report, he states it requires 7450 Watts to power the 5000 Watt generator, so there is your efficiency right there.

I think you should reread the report, Ted Carnes 1/2/05, due to the fact you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend what was being explained. It has made me seriously question the statement you made about "tutoring people who put there feet in their mouth", based on your last statement you could use some of that tutoring.

This is the relevant part here for your reference. This is where I got the data from. Check it yourself, it's all there.

So, 7450 watts in, 5000 watts out without the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=0.67:1

Connect device, 4800 watts in, 5000 watts out with the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=1.042:1

So if I have failed to understand the numbers and how they are being used, please explain it. What exactly did I miss and what is not correct?

[ring_theory]

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!

Uncertainty yes!  You have proved Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and applied it in a mechanism! you are so smart i bow before your greatness!! Now all we got to do is create a certainty principle and apply that to a mechanism. 8^) 

[Navi-gator]

If you read the report, he states it requires 7450 Watts to power the 5000 Watt generator, so there is your efficiency right there.

I think you should reread the report, Ted Carnes 1/2/05, due to the fact you have completely and utterly failed to comprehend what was being explained. It has made me seriously question the statement you made about "tutoring people who put there feet in their mouth", based on your last statement you could use some of that tutoring.

This is the relevant part here for your reference. This is where I got the data from. Check it yourself, it's all there.

So, 7450 watts in, 5000 watts out without the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=0.67:1

Connect device, 4800 watts in, 5000 watts out with the device. Efficiency = 67%, COP=1.042:1

So if I have failed to understand the numbers and how they are being used, please explain it. What exactly did I miss and what is not correct?

The bolded part was not included in your initial statement regarding the efficiency and therefore was very misleading.

Then you ignore the last sentence of that paragraph in the report which states in 1964 he intentionally showed only a little over 100% efficiency to accomplish something appearently never before done.

The report goes on to explain that the efficiency is limited only by the number of objects in motion, everytime you add another set the efficiency increases.

[z_p_e]

MG,

Allow me to jump ahead and answer your next question.

"How is it possible that Dante's device can only be 67% efficient if clearly it is putting out more power than is being put it when the device is connected, i.e. Pi=4800W, and Po=5000W.

Well, I have not read any of Dante's material, but I gather from the Carnes report, it is some kind of mechanical apparatus that attaches to the shaft in between the motor and generator.

In addition, I assume that no internal modification has been done to either the motor or generator when Dante's device is attached. Correct?

If the above interpretation and assumption is correct, then the reason the efficiency calculation is unaffected is because none of the losses, either internal or external to the motor and generator have been removed or modified.

Internally, there are bearing, Lenz, eddy, I^2R, heat etc. losses that don't go away just because Dante's device is attached.

The phenomenon that is responsible for achieving COP>1 in Dante's case arises from additional energy being furnished to the overall system via an outside force. In this case it could be gravity, it could be something to do with the "Aspden Effect", or perhaps along the lines of Schauberger's work, but whatever the mechanism dante is using, it is allowing additional energy in some form to enter the system, making it COP>1.

With or without this mechanism, the system efficiency remains the same.

Without Dante's device, let's assume there is a heavy flywheel attached to the shaft between the motor and generator. Now apply enough power to cause the motor to spin say 100 RPM. Let us also assume that the efficiency of this setup is still about 67%.

Now, you are standing close to the flywheel, and every second or so, you "slap" the flywheel with your hand in the direction of rotation, adding kinetic energy and as a result slightly higher RPM to the system.

So have you just altered the system efficiency? No, of course not. Have you then altered the system COP? Yes, absolutely.

If I am wrong about all this, by all means put me right...anyone.

Cheers,
Darren

[HopeForHumanity]

Many arn't replying to the thread because they think dante is a scam, but because he got the definition of overunity wrong. THATS IT!!! NOTHING ELSE!!! Yet people are becoming very disgruntled by navigator posting the "words" of Dante. Dante calls people who say overunity to be wrong. That the laws of physics are wrong. What he doesn't realize is that the intention of the website is to prove many laws of physics wrong, in an open source way. Plain and simple, we are doing the same thing as dante, changing some laws of physics, but we still use the CORRECT definition of overunity. So why do I get pissed off about this thread navigator? Because it feels more like an attack on the website! Should we start attacking the words Dante uses on his website?

Think about it!

Now think about this!
You get on to the forum www.OVERUNITY.com and create a thread called The truth about "overunity". Then you make the intention of the thread to tell us how the dedinition of overunity is flawed.

Now do you see what I'm saying? It's one of the most rude things you could possibly do on a forum. Go to any forum and call it's title flawed and you will recieve resistance.