That sounds to me like you are playing the "fake" card and the "real" card at the same time.

The occurrence of the Meissner effect indicates that superconductivity cannot be understood simply as the idealization of perfect conductivity in classical physics, as shown in the highlighted portion of the snapshot below.

Gravock

Yes we have seen this thread diverge into familiar territory the past few pages but what about the QEG?  To the recent posters, Gravityblock, Acca, and others, what do you think?  Real or fake?

If a device is OU, it must have an efficiency of over 100%.  Any efficiency over 100% is undefined as net output is possible with no input, the exact thing that we want from OU.  Mr. Murray-Smith's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not some yet to be discovered energy source is OU or a previously unidentified energy source.  If the source has the properties of inexhaustibility, and very low, ideally zero, operating cost then that energy source has the properties that we want from something that is OU.That is a reasonable enough assumption.  It leads to more or less two paths that I can see:  Either declare that searching for OU is a futile endeavor, or simply allowing that whatever is ultimately determined, OU is a convenient term to describe the properties of the kind of desirable new energy source that we would like to find.Unfortunately, it removes the distinction between what we want:  plentiful, cheap, clean new energy source(s) and things we would rather get past such as fossil fuels.  Personally, I do not object to the idea that if anything ever appears OU that it ultimately will almost certainly to be proven otherwise.Do you mean some other overunity site than this one?I think that there are many people who would disagree with us about the transient nature of anything that might appear OU staying that way.  One could qualify the term and say "apparent OU".  I do not think that is necessary and I don't think it adds much in the way of clarity.  It could inspire flame wars between camps who think that the First Law is violable and those who don't.  If a rich relative pays all my bills, then from my point of view everything in the world is free.COP and efficiency are both well defined.  "Free energy" has many interpretations.  In my experience:  OU is commonly understood to mean an energy source that appears to produce more than it consumes.  Some might object to the "appears" qualifier.  I don't see any value in quibbling about that until such a day as something that seems like a working OU machine appears on the scene.Mostly, yes, but there are exceptions.  Consider something like rocket fuel.  We put a lot more energy into making the rocket fuel then we get out of it.  The form of the fuel, its energy density, power density, etc matter more than the efficiency.I think you will find common agreement that each has a COP > 1.  I think that only a small minority would call either is OU.

That sounds to me like you are playing the "fake" card and the "real" card at the same time.