Author Topic: Overunity (what is it?) (Read 64711 times)

profitis · « **Reply #60 on:** March 09, 2014, 11:00:02 AM »

aha @farmhand.it seems that its a matter of wording as you say.for example cold fusion is a type of energy that is triggered by a 2nd law thermodynamics violation but then self-sustains on nuclear disintergration so its a hybrid natural resource/overunity combo that would require a more technical definition.the way to exclude natural resources completely necessitates a definition that covers a violation of either or both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics strictly speaking so we need words like this: overunity is a physical violation of either the 1st or 2nd law thermodynamics,period.natural resources mustnt fall under any overunity banner and must be totaly excluded from the above definition.unknown energy sources must also be put in a seperate 'unknown' category and incubate until we know for certain if its 1)true overunity ie. a violation of either or both the 1st and 2nd laws thermodynamics or 2)a hybrid true overunity/natural resource e.g.cold fusion or 3)total natural resource.

Mr Summitville · « **Reply #61 on:** October 01, 2014, 07:06:04 PM »

I have been searching for the definition of Over-Unity.
I just read a completely different thread on this site that went nowhere.
Now I read this thread and still no consensus.
I always related Over-Unity to efficiency.
Maybe that is wrong?
It appears to me that many think that
Over-Unity is equivalent to COP and not efficiency.

Where ...
COP = Output Energy / Only Human Input Energy
Efficiency = Output Energy / Total Input Energy

And since C.O.P can be > 1 then man-made devices can be Over-Unity.
What is the agreed upon definition of "Over-Unity" at www.overunity.com?
Or is there no consensus, yet?

Or maybe just use the terms COP and Efficiency since they are clearly defined?

profitis · « **Reply #62 on:** October 03, 2014, 12:39:14 AM »

Wikipedia's definition for perpetuum mobilum is about as good as it gets.

Mr Summitville · « **Reply #63 on:** October 04, 2014, 04:31:21 PM »

Quote from: profitis on October 03, 2014, 12:39:14 AM

Wikipedia's definition for perpetuum mobilum is about as good as it gets.

Profitis,
Are you stating the "consensus" definition of Over-Unity per this board is, in fact, the definition of "Perpetual Motion" on wikipedia?

profitis · « **Reply #64 on:** October 04, 2014, 07:52:04 PM »

It better be mr summitville.otherwize we are effectively nothing more than an efficiency research corp.

jhewitt1976 · « **Reply #65 on:** January 10, 2015, 04:22:54 PM »

I pondered the question of "Overunity" and what is a definition that would be accurate without causing all of the scientific community to shout verses from the old testament of the "Bible of Conservation".

"Overunity" as per the common tongue and even scientifically accepted (short & to the point) "definition" is impossible, as far as anyone knows, there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, you under NO circumstances (favorable and/or accidental) can NOT create energy, it can only be converted or collected and stored as "potential energy", this has to be accepted.....but does that mean "Overunity" is in actuality "impossible"

I consider myself a skilled and experienced scientist based on my education history, career and theories, and one thing I have always despised and HATED about the scientific community is the egomaniacal, bull-headed mentality of most of them, especially those in my field/s physics & quantum physics, we are the WORST when it comes to "pride, prejudice and bias", God forbid if someone comes along and claims they have a theory or idea that challenges an established "LAW" or a long time accepted theory. chaos ensues, like the damn Biblical Crusades....only worse, though extremely hypocritical, since every scientist hopes they can discover or create something new or even improve that which already exists for themselves, and it is because of things like "curiosity", "imagination" and "competition" that all that makes up the world of science to begin with exists in the first place, do you really think the various "Laws of Conservation" would exist in the first place, if it wasn't for some crazy nut-ball had NOT come along and shouted, "energy is everywhere and in everything !!!", well, no, he was fought against, but it was accepted, then along came the ideas that it was true, but because there is only so much of everything, there can only be so much energy, from there, eventually sprouted those pesky laws of conservation

Well, one thing that is a HUGE double edged sword that NO scientist will EVER ADMIT is that "overanalyzing" can kill as easily as confirm !!! so what am I getting at

The typical defense "Energy can NEVER be created, only converted from one form to another & therefore any process, device and/or theory claiming to be able to create an energetic output greater than the amount used to initiate and maintain said "process, device and/or theory", is of pure fiction and often the claim itself being the method of some type of scam."

is what is used to kill any chance of us (legitimate) "Overunity" aficionados, from getting our designs and/or theories even looked at, much less seen as a legitimate possibility, (true, the 99% of which are claimed and attempted at selling are the real scammers, does NOT help our case", so, about 30+/- years ago, I believe I came up with a definition that would satisfy everyone....it is very simple, so that scientists will have no choice but to accept it as a legitimate possibility and even the average "Joe" (or Jane) that knows nothing about energy, conservation and/or "Overunity" has to accept.

The new (Non)-Webster's definition of the word "Overunity"

over*unity

The ability to create an energetic output greater than the amount and/or "cost" of energy used to initiate and consistently maintain the process through a system that utilizes a combination of optimal efficiency combined with efficient extraction, recovery and/or conversion of single or a combination of several energy sources.

A typical over*unity system often relies on the use of free sources of energy such as, photonic (light), thermal (heat), kinetic (motion) and electromagnetic fields, but is NOT limited to just those sources.

A simple example would be using a solar panel to initiate a high torque, high speed, high efficiency, brushless motor with several high power magnets and high density coils directly to the rod, extracting an amount of energy from the source of potential energy stored within the magnets, that is greater than the amount of energy required to maintain the motor's movements.

Since the system example itself does not "create" energy, merely collects, extracts and converts sources of energy at great efficiency, the "over*unity" of the system does not contradict any scientifically established and accepted laws.

***

in my experience with my own designs and the theories and designs of the hundreds of others who shared over the decades, I have found that all the non-scam/legitimate attempts fall under this main truth and so I feel that this "Definition" that I have proposed, is one that most "Overunity" aficionados can agree with.

Hope it is acceptable

J.

tinman · « **Reply #66 on:** January 11, 2015, 02:53:44 AM »

Quote from: jhewitt1976 on January 10, 2015, 04:22:54 PM

I pondered the question of "Overunity" and what is a definition that would be accurate without causing all of the scientific community to shout verses from the old testament of the "Bible of Conservation".

"Overunity" as per the common tongue and even scientifically accepted (short & to the point) "definition" is impossible, as far as anyone knows, there is only a finite amount of energy in the universe, you under NO circumstances (favorable and/or accidental) can NOT create energy, it can only be converted or collected and stored as "potential energy", this has to be accepted.....but does that mean "Overunity" is in actuality "impossible"

I consider myself a skilled and experienced scientist based on my education history, career and theories, and one thing I have always despised and HATED about the scientific community is the egomaniacal, bull-headed mentality of most of them, especially those in my field/s physics & quantum physics, we are the WORST when it comes to "pride, prejudice and bias", God forbid if someone comes along and claims they have a theory or idea that challenges an established "LAW" or a long time accepted theory. chaos ensues, like the damn Biblical Crusades....only worse, though extremely hypocritical, since every scientist hopes they can discover or create something new or even improve that which already exists for themselves, and it is because of things like "curiosity", "imagination" and "competition" that all that makes up the world of science to begin with exists in the first place, do you really think the various "Laws of Conservation" would exist in the first place, if it wasn't for some crazy nut-ball had NOT come along and shouted, "energy is everywhere and in everything !!!", well, no, he was fought against, but it was accepted, then along came the ideas that it was true, but because there is only so much of everything, there can only be so much energy, from there, eventually sprouted those pesky laws of conservation

Well, one thing that is a HUGE double edged sword that NO scientist will EVER ADMIT is that "overanalyzing" can kill as easily as confirm !!! so what am I getting at
The typical defense "Energy can NEVER be created, only converted from one form to another & therefore any process, device and/or theory claiming to be able to create an energetic output greater than the amount used to initiate and maintain said "process, device and/or theory", is of pure fiction and often the claim itself being the method of some type of scam."

is what is used to kill any chance of us (legitimate) "Overunity" aficionados, from getting our designs and/or theories even looked at, much less seen as a legitimate possibility, (true, the 99% of which are claimed and attempted at selling are the real scammers, does NOT help our case", so, about 30+/- years ago, I believe I came up with a definition that would satisfy everyone....it is very simple, so that scientists will have no choice but to accept it as a legitimate possibility and even the average "Joe" (or Jane) that knows nothing about energy, conservation and/or "Overunity" has to accept.

The new (Non)-Webster's definition of the word "Overunity"

over*unity

The ability to create an energetic output greater than the amount and/or "cost" of energy used to initiate and consistently maintain the process through a system that utilizes a combination of optimal efficiency combined with efficient extraction, recovery and/or conversion of single or a combination of several energy sources.

A typical over*unity system often relies on the use of free sources of energy such as, photonic (light), thermal (heat), kinetic (motion) and electromagnetic fields, but is NOT limited to just those sources.

A simple example would be using a solar panel to initiate a high torque, high speed, high efficiency, brushless motor with several high power magnets and high density coils directly to the rod, extracting an amount of energy from the source of potential energy stored within the magnets, that is greater than the amount of energy required to maintain the motor's movements.

Since the system example itself does not "create" energy, merely collects, extracts and converts sources of energy at great efficiency, the "over*unity" of the system does not contradict any scientifically established and accepted laws.

***

in my experience with my own designs and the theories and designs of the hundreds of others who shared over the decades, I have found that all the non-scam/legitimate attempts fall under this main truth and so I feel that this "Definition" that I have proposed, is one that most "Overunity" aficionados can agree with.

Hope it is acceptable

J.

Couldnt have said it better my self-we have a couple of those here in this forum that fits the highlighted piece of your post.

My quote from post 9-Quote:I posted this same question on both my forum,and at OUR. The answer in general at the end was-an OU device would only remain an OU device,until the input power source was known and understood. The device would then no longer be considered OU.

It will be nice to have some one else on this forum that questions todays physics,and has an open mind to what could be possible.

Brad

Dog-One · « **Reply #67 on:** January 11, 2015, 07:05:24 AM »

Quote from: tinman on January 11, 2015, 02:53:44 AM

It will be nice to have some one else on this forum that questions todays physics,and has an open mind to what could be possible.

There is. I question everything and a lot of the things I question, I have found to be bullshit.

I can tell you something I am absolutely certain of. If you take all these so-called "laws" of physics and give them to a pack of attorneys, within weeks, everyone of those "laws" will be circumvented. Then all you will need is a handful of engineers and technicians that can understand legalese well enough to build something.

Case closed.

dieter · « **Reply #68 on:** January 11, 2015, 12:22:41 PM »

I double that. As I said recently, if energy cannot be created, why does it exist? Let us assume mass and energy are just two sides of the same thing, the all, the existance of all things. The amount may be finite, but does it really exist FOREVER? What is forever anyway. Only a closed loop of time can be eternal.

However, Overunity... it simply means an efficiency of more than 100%. Whereever those impossible extra percents come from, which is an entirely isolated issue.

We could say, the efficieny is 90% when we just watch the electrical or gasoline input. Now, if we add a further force to the operation, we may easily achieve > 100%, compared to the electrical / gas input. Whether we can explain the additional force or not.

It's funny that the term "zero point field" comes from established quantum physics (as far as I know), but certainly has been misused by many pseudo inventors, along with other catch phrases.

Let us look at the Atom. It is in constant motion and it executes tremendous force, like the atomic boundries that normally are preventing natural fusion. Electron spin is manifesting 24/7 perpetuum motion. BUT an atom is not a closed system. It is connected to the universe in a way that we just begin to understand. An atom is an open system perpetuum mobile.

There are many ways to tap from the energy of the universal existance. Call it however you want. In the end of the day all energy consumption and usage is simply Unity, because of the conservation.

Established science tho has a completely diffrent agenda when it comes to the discovery of new energy sources. They are strictly bound to the dogmata that were indoctrinated by economic interests, and moreover interests of power and slavery.

J.P. Morgan is one symptomatic example of preventing the world from becoming utopia, for the sake of a handful of filty dollars. This is how little minds shape mankind, the true tragody of this planet. And established science is nothing more but the pet of the money masters, standing on two legs to earn a cookie.

But this is not over yet. We still can fix it, even if that means that some human-like individuals have to step back in evolution.

BR

Liberty · « **Reply #69 on:** January 11, 2015, 01:36:21 PM »

Quote from: dieter on January 11, 2015, 12:22:41 PM

I double that. As I said recently, if energy cannot be created, why does it exist? Let us assume mass and energy are just two sides of the same thing, the all, the existance of all things. The amount may be finite, but does it really exist FOREVER? What is forever anyway. Only a closed loop of time can be eternal.

However, Overunity... it simply means an efficiency of more than 100%. Whereever those impossible extra percents come from, which is an entirely isolated issue.

We could say, the efficieny is 90% when we just watch the electrical or gasoline input. Now, if we add a further force to the operation, we may easily achieve > 100%, compared to the electrical / gas input. Whether we can explain the additional force or not.

It's funny that the term "zero point field" comes from established quantum physics (as far as I know), but certainly has been misused by many pseudo inventors, along with other catch phrases.

Let us look at the Atom. It is in constant motion and it executes tremendous force, like the atomic boundries that normally are preventing natural fusion. Electron spin is manifesting 24/7 perpetuum motion. BUT an atom is not a closed system. It is connected to the universe in a way that we just begin to understand. An atom is an open system perpetuum mobile.

There are many ways to tap from the energy of the universal existance. Call it however you want. In the end of the day all energy consumption and usage is simply Unity, because of the conservation.

Established science tho has a completely diffrent agenda when it comes to the discovery of new energy sources. They are strictly bound to the dogmata that were indoctrinated by economic interests, and moreover interests of power and slavery.

J.P. Morgan is one symptomatic example of preventing the world from becoming utopia, for the sake of a handful of filty dollars. This is how little minds shape mankind, the true tragody of this planet. And established science is nothing more but the pet of the money masters, standing on two legs to earn a cookie.

But this is not over yet. We still can fix it, even if that means that some human-like individuals have to step back in evolution.

BR

Physics is correct, but it has only defined and supported "less than 100% efficient" devices and constructs. Physics assumes and only accepts that all methods are bound to be less than 100% overall efficient. That is not true in reality. You can take a force and add that ability to a conventional device to improve overall efficiency beyond 100%, if designed correctly and efficiently.

The corrupt belief of "millions of years" (in "evolution") as truth, has corrupted areas of science (and limited their ability to think higher), and led it astray and on a wrong path away from admitting creation and God, the source of life and truth and reality and in higher thinking. The belief that things continue over extremely long periods of time (which is not observable) and evolve into higher states, is deeply flawed and founded in ignoring historical geological records and facts that soundly and easily disprove evolution as a viable theory. Leading astray real observable science and attempting to replace it with a corrupt belief in a man-made up religion and false science, based on lies and corruption of facts, in an attempt to be without God and ignore the source of life and light, which leads to their own demise.

Liberty

forest · « **Reply #70 on:** January 11, 2015, 07:03:36 PM »

Overunity is around us.Heat pumps, solar panels and so on. OU devices are simply better then already knew ones today. For example a solar panel tapping WHOLE range of EM spectrum, or a solar panel in 3D form with mirrors and so on. Heat pumps which tap Earth magnetic field are already known but supressed.
If there is single person on this forum believing in magic creation of energy he should re-think his statement.

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #71 on:** January 12, 2015, 04:41:35 AM »

Quote from: forest on January 11, 2015, 07:03:36 PM

Overunity is around us.Heat pumps, solar panels and so on. OU devices are simply better then already knew ones today. For example a solar panel tapping WHOLE range of EM spectrum, or a solar panel in 3D form with mirrors and so on. Heat pumps which tap Earth magnetic field are already known but supressed.
If there is single person on this forum believing in magic creation of energy he should re-think his statement.

I don't think either heat pumps or solar panels fit the definition of an 'overunity' device.

A heat pump may output 3 or more times more energy as heat than the work required to run it. However you couldn't then capture that heat output, turn it back into work and use that work to run itself. As such it follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The end result of any conversion of energy is always increased entropy.
Localised entropy decrease is possible but when considered as a closed system, entropy only ever increases.

Most people when they describe over-unity are theorising devices (knowingly or not) that would violate the 2nd law.

It just doesn't happen. If you believe it can then you simply don't actually understand the meaning of the 2nd law.

However, the second law does not preclude using previously unknown energy gradients and transforming them into work or some other useful form of energy.

Pirate88179 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 12, 2015, 05:01:37 AM »

Quote from: LibreEnergia on January 12, 2015, 04:41:35 AM

I don't think either heat pumps or solar panels fit the definition of an 'overunity' device.

A heat pump may output 3 or more times more energy as heat than the work required to run it. However you couldn't then capture that heat output, turn it back into work and use that work to run itself. As such it follows the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The end result of any conversion of energy is always increased entropy.
Localised entropy decrease is possible but when considered as a closed system, entropy only ever increases.

Most people when they describe over-unity are theorising devices (knowingly or not) that would violate the 2nd law.

It just doesn't happen. If you believe it can then you simply don't actually understand the meaning of the 2nd law.

However, the second law does not preclude using previously unknown energy gradients and transforming them into work or some other useful form of energy.

Very well said Sir. I agree totally.

If indeed a heat pump was overunity, then you could simply plug it into itself and run it for free, which we all know can not be done.

To me, self-running, closed loop is the only standard that would prove true O.U. As TK has stated many times, if you actually get 1.2 % more out than in, you should be able to make a self-runner. When he posses this to many folks that claim 300%, or even 1,000% overunity, they just say that they had tried this and it does not work. Of course not. And, we know why.

Bill

ramset · « **Reply #73 on:** January 12, 2015, 10:34:06 AM »

Libra
Quote
However, the second law does not preclude using previously unknown energy gradients and transforming them into work or some other useful form of energy.

so you mean something like this?

Forest
Quote
Heat pumps which tap Earth magnetic field are already known but suppressed

----------------------
thx
Chet.

LibreEnergia · « **Reply #74 on:** January 12, 2015, 11:35:41 PM »

Quote from: ramset on January 12, 2015, 10:34:06 AM

Libra
Quote
However, the second law does not preclude using previously unknown energy gradients and transforming them into work or some other useful form of energy.
so you mean something like this?

Forest
Quote
Heat pumps which tap Earth magnetic field are already known but suppressed

----------------------
thx
Chet.

I'm unaware of any heat-pumps that 'tap the earths magnetic field'.

There are heat pumps that operate using magnetism but these don't 'tap the earths field'. They use a magnet near its currie point and absorb heat from the air. They are not over-unity, although they can be quite efficient.

As to heat pumps that do tap the energy of the earth, I have one myself. It is as ground source heat pump that extracts heat from the water in a well on my property. It runs hot water radiators and has better efficiency than an air source heat pump.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Overunity (what is it?) (Read 64711 times)

profitis

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

Mr Summitville

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

profitis

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

Mr Summitville

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

profitis

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

jhewitt1976

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

tinman

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

Dog-One

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

dieter

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

Liberty

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

forest

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

LibreEnergia

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

Pirate88179

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

ramset

Re: Overunity (what is it?)

LibreEnergia

Re: Overunity (what is it?)