What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

If they, like you, consider these submissions 'healthy' then you all have a strange 'take' on good health.  While I welcome comment - I assure you I will NEVER AGAIN depend on the 'considerations' or ruling or opinion of any Open Source member unless he disclose his accreditations together with his name - is the first point.  And then - they, like you Omnibus, will need to defer to the opinion of those who are directly involved - like it or not.  And quite frankly - of your list I only know Poynty.  I'm absolutely inclined to respect his opinion.  As I understand it he considers that we have all made gross measurement errors.  Unfortunately he has not been able to point out where.  And nor do I think he's that interested to work on the subject.  And his opinion in this matter is irrelevant until he engages in a close analaysis as to WHERE is that 'fault'.  Otherwise he is simply - like you - detracting from a desirable technology.

I don't know these people either. Don't know them personally neither do I know what their credentials are. I'm only judging based on what they say here in the forum and most of it has been very competent and useful. I, unlike you, judge by the actual deeds and arguments presented and not by some pretentious credentials which soon prove to be phony in many cases. I have encountered such pseudo experts more than once. You yourself, as far as I understand, have been suffering from such pseudo scientific self-proclaimed credentialism, as it were. My experience is that there is nothing better than open source discussion as long as you can recognize who the zealous activist is and who is the honest critic. I'm not even mentioning the incompetent.

[Omnibus]

Rosemary, i forgot to comment on the following and it's important to do soL

One thing I KNOW.  If there had not been these and similar detractions throughout these Open Source Forums - then the news of this technology would be more widespread.

It is absolutely not true that these forums have anything to do with these kinds of research (technology) not being widely spread. You should somehow understand that these forums have practically no impact on the world of science of technology, they are not much more than a friendly chat (friendly bickering sometimes) and make no dent in the understanding of the general public. Therefore, it is imperative to have your stuff published in the peer-reviewed literature where it will begin to acquire its real scientific life in a community which is instrumental not only in spreading the word but also controlling the research resources which nobody can compete with. That's why enjoy the forums, don't blame them for anything and don't expect them to break the solid fence surrounding the overunity research. Try to get the most of the discussions which will help you to sharpen the arguments when you decide to wage the battle where it really belongs -- in the academy.

[Low-Q]

I read this statement of yours everywhere Ominibus.  You have 3 arguments? is it? that existing Thermodynamic Laws allow for OU?       Can I see your paper on this and has it been presented to a peer reviewed journal for publication?  I would have thought that many people would be interested in this.

And if you know the appropriate construction of such an OU machine could you please indulge us all on Open Source and let us see this design?  Or are you here referring to those experiments that others have done - where you seem to reserve some exclusive right to arbitrate on their effectiveness?

Omnibus have three arguments. None of them are proof of OU. A few members here have tried to explain why it isn't OU, but it doesn't help.

Omnibus, this is no longer an opinion, but straight facts. No offense.

Vidar

[Omnibus]

Omnibus have three arguments. None of them are proof of OU. A few members here have tried to explain why it isn't OU, but it doesn't help.

Omnibus, this is no longer an opinion, but straight facts. No offense.

Vidar

The above is obviously an opinion and you should restrain from further pushing it in this way trying to make it look as truth. You may repeat it 100 times but it will still remain an opinion.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

The above is obviously an opinion and you should restrain from further pushing it in this way trying to make it look as truth. You may repeat it 100 times but it will still remain an opinion.

Not the truth but a mere opinion?  I saw you yourself claim that you weren't entirely satisfied with the argument and therefore have NOT published in a peer reviewed journal as you advise everyone else to do.  Notwithstanding which, you are satisfied enough to refer me and all readers to the existence of that argument as you stated 'you've proved it conclusively' that it's allowed - or words to that effect.  I'm too bored to find the actual quote.

Omnibus I strongly recommend that you desist from advising others where you, yourself, cannot comply.  Over unity is the measure of energy delivered from a supply or many supply sources that is less than the energy measured to be dissipated as a result of that energy transfer.  It defies classical prediction.  If you can prove that it's actually REQUIRED in terms of classical prediction -  then I suspect there will be many interested readers.

Rosemary