Anyone here also on Overunity.com forums?

@Arrowhead

If you really are an engineer with the responsibility you mention, and you really do believe in this hydrogen booster stuff, then you need to be fired for incompetence.

Click to expand...

LOL, I don't think you understand what corperations want in any way, all of my colleagues are professionals and they know there job and are very competent at what they do. But **** always happens that we were never trained for and when it does I am the one they come to because I can think outside the box. I may not be "conventional" in any sense of the word but I always get the job done because I will never stop learning. I know my job and that of every other employee in the plant as well as the job of the person who designed the plant. At the end of the day conventional employee's are a dime a dozen because they refuse to learn after they are trained to do specific tasks, ask any business owner "who" they want to work for them. A so-called responsible adult who needs there hand held to do anything new or a person who can think on there feet and always gets the job done.

@PhilDubya

Never mind, I just checked out your piece of "interpretation" on velocity and acceleration, and centripetal force, and it is WAAAAAYYYYYY off. That explains a lot.......

Click to expand...

Maybe you could explain why it is "off"?
I know why you think it is off but I just want to hear the words.

allcanadian said:

@PhilDubya

Maybe you could explain why it is "off"?
I know why you think it is off but I just want to hear the words.

Click to expand...

For one, centripetal force does exist, and no has ever said that it doesn't, including Newton. This is explained in Newtonian Mechanics. It is a form of angular acceleration in combination with a mass. It is most definitely a two dimensional property, and most definitely exists. Which conveniently leads to your next contradiction.

Two, how exactly are you equating a velocity to a an acceleration in that equation?

Three:

allcanadian said:

But then again Newton never understood what was happening to begin with LOL.

Click to expand...

Really? Even though everything that happens at non-relativistic speeds is totally governed by these laws? Can you prove him wrong?

It seems as though you have read a bunch of little facts here and there, and now you are mentally pasting them together in way that creates an image of what you want to see.

Overunity.com is the super-market tabloid of the internet.

@PhilDubya

For one, centripetal force does exist, and no has ever said that it doesn't, including Newton. This is explained in Newtonian Mechanics. It is a form of angular acceleration in combination with a mass. It is most definitely a two dimensional property, and most definitely exists. Which conveniently leads to your next contradiction.

Click to expand...

I said most people believe centripital force is imaginary not all nor people who understand physics.

Two, how exactly are you equating a velocity to a an acceleration in that equation?

Click to expand...

Velocity is a rate in change of position, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. In the equation E=mcsquared it is assumed that the energy inherent in mass is related in an absolute sense to velocities within mass as a matter of perspective. We see this because we are self-centered as such we see our world in exactly the same way. I am equating a velocity C to an acceleration Csquared by assuming C cannot be constant and time cannot be static at C. The accelerations Csquared in mass(energy)may not be a function of mass itself they could be a function of the changing electrostatic potentials exterior to mass---radiation in oscillation at C. I assume this because C applies to matter, superluminal shock waves ie...radiant energy would not be matter in motion but oscillations in matter in motion, waves not having the limitations of C.

Really? Even though everything that happens at non-relativistic speeds is totally governed by these laws? Can you prove him wrong?

Click to expand...

Newton studied "effects" he knew very little of the "cause" of why the effects he noted happened in the first place. He studied the effects of gravity but he never knew "what" gravity is. If I could prove Newton wrong I definitely would not tell anyone

Overunity.com is the super-market tabloid of the internet.

Click to expand...

I would agree it is changing drastically from what it was but you cannot judge a book by it's cover, every now and then I see a spark of genius appear in the chaos.

Does this guy have anything of substance to discuss? So far all I’ve seen is ego-fluffing and straw men.

Overunity.com is down, my site blueroomelectronics.com is down, coincidence YES. (my server is getting an upgrade)

PS a worthwhile read with the math explained why the 200MPG carb is impossible.
**broken link removed**

I got dissed by LOL Catz
**broken link removed**

And here's a special motivational poster for overunity inventors.

**broken link removed**

PS Rubber grows on trees, overunity doesn't exist.

Dissed by LOL catz on overunity.com?

**broken link removed**

The message I was responding to was deleted. Ahh well. I should remember to use quotes next time. I was basically dissed out by someone will all the writing skills of a cat who also seem amazed at the invention of rubber.

Oh.. maybe I should stay out of it, then.

**broken link removed**

blueroomelectronics said:

Overunity.com is down, my site blueroomelectronics.com is down, coincidence YES. (my server is getting an upgrade)

PS a worthwhile read with the math explained why the 200MPG carb is impossible.
**broken link removed**

Click to expand...

It's theoretically possible but not with current technology.

I think the most practical way might be to use a six stroke engine.
Six stroke engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 200 MPG carb is easy enough.

The real challenge is making a 200 MPG, road-worthy car that people will want to drive and will be able to afford.

By the way I like the explanation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The only problem with the hydraulic analogy is that it fails to account for the fact that heat engines are more efficient at lower temperatures. For example 10K to 0.1K is far more efficient than 100k to 90.1k even though the temperature differential is the same. A hydroelectric plant with the same amount of water head will have the same theoretically maximum efficiency regardless of how high it is above sea level.

Why do these formuns exist

HMMMM...Over-unity forum...could keep me busy for months!

Oh it's intersting but that's about it. More like a sounding board for half baked ideas.

Or a gold mine for psychoanalysts. Loads of crazy arrogance, resolute belief in myths, big egos, paranoia, cranks, crackpots and voodoo engineering.