What is over unity?

[Omnibus]

Needless to say, we still haven't observed any kind of OU so far... Funny, eh?

That is not true. I have demonstrated conclusively in three different ways that overunity is real.

By the way, it is also not true that in order to produce energy there must be a hidden, hitherto unknown energy source to tap into. As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.

[conradelektro]

As I have shown conclusively energy can be produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir provided the machine is of an appropriate construction.

This must be a "Gedankenexperiment" or a theoretical argument, or can you show a working machine doing just that?

Greetings, Conrad

[Omnibus]

This must be a "Gedankenexperiment" or a theoretical argument, or can you show a working machine doing just that?

Greetings, Conrad

Working machine in what sense? I can show a working machine producing portions of excess energy. I can also show a working machine producing excess energy continuously but not a self-sustaining machine. Creating a self-sustaining machine is a very difficult engineering task but being unable to manufacture such machine today for obvious engineering reasons doesn't mean overunity isn't real and that such machine cannot be made in the future. On the contrary, I have shown conclusively that overunity is real, as I said, in three different ways.

[conradelektro]

Working machine in what sense? ........  but not a self-sustaining machine. ....... being unable to manufacture such machine today

A working machine which I would accept as proof:

- a self sustaining machine

- a machine which can be manufactured today

- a machine that gives 1000 Watt more output than is put in (1000 Watt is a practical limit, so that it can be measured reliably without lengthy discussions; specially "caloric measurements" are difficult unless one gets a lot of heat, e.g. 1000 Watt and more)

Yes, there is no proof that "over unity is not possible".

But it is the burden of the "over unity inventor or advocate" to produce physical proof that his machine works. I do not have to proof that it does not work.

For some people, tiny amounts of may be measured "over unity energy" are conclusive and I have no problem with that as long as I am entitled to demand 1000 Watt before I become a believer.

Some have proven to themselves and others that they have seen god; I am a sinner who needs more that these people can offer.

I see an atomic power station with 100 Megawatt output, therefore I take "atomic energy" for granted. I see powerful steam engines, therefore I believe in the conversion of heat into torque. I drive a car, therefore I believe in oil.

I see no reliable and strong output (at least 1000 Watt) from an "over unity machine", therefore I remain a skeptic.

You may call me naive and not properly educated in physics, but all existing "non over unity" machines which I studied show reliable and strong output, and I could understand them sufficiently to convince me. Therefore I demand the same "performance" from an "over unity machine".

But my argument was not whether "over unity machines" work or not.

My argument is:

If you want people to listen do not use the terms "over unity" or "free energy". Try to explain your working machine without abandoning "energy conservation". If you have no working machine, then be prepared to meet a lot of unbelievers and even aggression.

I have seen a lot of claims in the "over unity field" where "over unity" was not really claimed (or needed not to be claimed). The "inventors" rather claimed the "exploitation of an unknown energy" or a "new way of converting a known energy". I know that some claim the extraction of energy from a field (like from gravity), but also this could be explained by referring to "unknown properties of the field" instead of using the unfortunate "over unity".

But fine, some like the term "over unity" and like the idea "of something from nothing". May be the whole universe is "something from nothing", but then show me a working machine with a strong output.

Most conversations fail because of the "terms" used. Therefore I advice the careful choice of terms before issuing strange claims without strong proof.

I want to give an example of a good choice of words when issuing a strange claim:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/
http://hydrino.org/

Again, I am not yet believing in the "Hydrino" or in Dr. Randell L. Mills. I just want to say, that Mills uses a much better way of presenting his (may be useless) ideas than most of the "over unity crowd" including Mr. Omnibus. The "Hydrino" advocates never say "over unity" or "free energy" and this is according to me a very strong reason why they get funding and room in the media.

Greetings, Conrad

[Omnibus]

This is what you would expect as proof but not what science would expect as proof. Different people have different expectations. What science expects, however, is what matters.