Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

A-Ads

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 513376
  • *Total Topics: 15278
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: The paradox of overunity  (Read 72235 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2011, 12:55:38 AM »
The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

::) (only because this site has no face/palm smiley)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2011, 12:55:38 AM »

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #166 on: May 21, 2011, 06:23:43 AM »
Hi guys.

Over-Unity is possible, it was done on the first day of nuclear testing, a nuclear bomb detonation has 30,000 times more energy than what it took to develop it.

this is truth.

do you see where this is going?

this does not include Fusion Bombs let alone Anti-matter bombs.

it is a 'direction' of where you should be and not an absolute of where it will go.

Jerry 8)

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #167 on: May 21, 2011, 06:28:44 AM »
@Onthecuttingedge2010I'm not sure I would agree simply because a very long time ago logic would suggest the Earth was flat, that is as far as one could see the Earth was flat therefore as far as the facts and logic were concerned the Earth was flat. You see there is no such thing as "Logic" without people and people interpret the facts as they see fit therefore what we are really saying is that Logic is our interpretation or perspective of the facts we have but not facts of anything in themselves because we do not know.
I mention this because I see many critics using "Logic" to justify their "opinions" and make the deluded assumption that because logic is supposedly infallible so must their opinions be infallible, lol, I hope you can appreciate how insane this is. The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
In some sense we can replace logic with perspective, If we understand logic is simply a perspective then we can view a problem from many perspectives in order to get a more logical however it should be obvious that more people believing something does not make an answer more right only more popular as history has proven time and time again.
In essence it is a mistake to use logic as a crutch to justify our opinions because we know as a fact it is unreliable due to our history, we and logic are not perfect.
Regards
AC

you didn't read my quote did you?
Please read.
Reply #163

Jerry 8)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #167 on: May 21, 2011, 06:28:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2011, 07:40:39 AM »
is that your idea of a cogent rebuttal? ::)

Not really wilbyinebriated. I was just having a bit of fun. I understand your perspective. We all have different perspectives and I apologise if I descended into ad hominem mode.

I have been working quite hard on an alternative energy project and reacted irrationally to your observations out of fatigue. Apologies  :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2011, 08:30:11 AM »
insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

::) (only because this site has no face/palm smiley)

Very good point Wilby.

Some doggerel - not sure if it's strictly on topic.

If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be

That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably discernible
And all determined unequivocally

While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity

While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To wed these branches from a single tree

Of knowledge.  And though questionable
It still is more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2011, 08:30:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline HeairBear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #170 on: May 21, 2011, 02:20:22 PM »

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #171 on: February 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM »
I will break this down as best as I possibly can and as simplified as I can.


First law of thermodynamics. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"


Second "You cannot get more energy out of a closed system than you put in"


COP "Co-efficient of power or ratio of power in to power out"


Problem: Energy is not power. Power is a ratio of energy over time. Energy = joules..... power = watts

These all tie together with the concept of OU in that OU by definition = COP > 1, or power in > power out...... which as noted by the original poster accurately as not possible. Please don't jump to conclusions just yet. (That has been happening recently.)

For COP > 1, then a valid unaccounted for or 'external' energy source is present but not accounted for, not a case of energy being created.


When accounted for, then COP <= 1. Simple logic.


True OU means there is NO external energy source.


Even people claiming 'crystal power' as the energy source for their device are claiming an external energy source, and are MISCLAIMING OU, due to the common misuse of the term. (I am not even berating them for claiming it either, before someone gets defensive.) If you claim ANYTHING as an outside power source, then you are NOT claiming OU.


Logically, claiming OU is equivalent to the admission of not knowing what the external power source actually is, which would be a better admission than claiming what it is not.


However, to claim OU... AND claim an external power source at the same time is to apply circular logic. You cannot have both at the same time.


Here is some advice.... the phrase "I don't know. I cannot account for the extraneous energy present but I postulate that it might be"...


Do this, and you won't sound like a fake. It seems like everybody wants to automatically state ZPE, mass energy, or whatever.... What becomes quickly evident is that they are hoping or at best guessing ZPE, mass energy, or whatever, and also that they are B.Sing. It immediately throws doubt in ones mind at this point, and the whole concept becomes more and more dubious. It throws the initial claim itself in doubt.


Before anybody thinks this has anything to do with "the burden of proof", "extraordinary claims", etc.... This has NOTHING to do with that. First of all, trials are for a courtroom, of which the term "proof" belongs. Science is not law, and there is no such fallacy as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  If that were true, then MOST popularly accepted theories would be on trial today. It is selectively applied, and is non-scientific in nature.


The reason for admission has EVERYTHING to do with interpersonal human interaction. You lie to someone, and they tend to think of you as a liar...... It's that simple. Just as you will think that of someone whom lies to you in your own house, face to face. You cannot put much trust in them, and will become skeptical of anything they claim after that point.


It is OK to be both honest and wrong, as it is a common human trait. Saying "I was wrong", is only a bad thing to a person whom has an inflated ego.


I have been wrong many times, and will be again. That is called being human.


Yet no-one can say I intentionally lied to them, and amazingly enough that often earns something called respect. I do not expect agreement, just honest evaluation of what I put forth.


Think about it.


Paul Andrulis






















Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #171 on: February 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM »
Sponsored links:




 

OneLink