I was in the shower and had this funny skit in my head which resulted from thinking about the argument of perpetual motion. Personally I think the idea of perpetual motion is silly because no one will live for eternity to see or benefit from it. I was thinking it would be as non productive as wondering if Micheal Jackson went into the great beyond as a skinny tall african american or if he still looks like an ugly white chick with messed up hair in the ever after.
   But that lead to thinking about the law of conservation and if energy can be neither be created or destroyed and only detected or measure by it's movement to one form into another, does that not fit the description of perpetual motion? If so then we can all spend stupid amounts of time thinking about Micheal instead of perpetual motion.
   Yup that's ignorant.

 I guess I am stuck for the moment on what it is that is to be measured. Work done or energy transformed. Yesterday I spent a lot of thought on it. If your measuring energy as it moves from one frame of reference to another how do you exclude the fact that everything is moving all the time anyway form a larger point of view. Like the bird on a wire. If you only measure what passes between it's feet then there is nearly nothing to be measured. If the bird does not know to what extent the energy reaches past his own frame of reference how would he be able to realize the potential of what he is sitting on. From the birds point of view it is just a flimsy stick laying across or between elevated objects.
    Work expended compared to work done would allow for efficient improvements maybe when they become efficient enough it could become self acting. Then you are using the same force repeatedly with out applying more to do the same work over and over. The amount of force is still the same to start the action and the amount of force spent to do the work is still the same. Even if you look at each block of time where the work is done and then repeated it is still the same quantities just repeated over again.
  In order for it to be OU are you measuring the work done compared to energy expended for each time the work is done in a single frame of time.Or the amount of work done from a single action to cause the energy to move in the first moment until it is exhausted?
 

 So in a model of ou. The energy your working with would have to be a limited supply and show a growth or gain like an expanding displacement while it is performing work? If it was powered by a full charge battery it would have to >remain fully charged< while charging a second dead battery while doing work such as running a motor or a heater?
   I would imagine a person would just run a bigger heater that could use up all the power and just end up with a lot of heat from one battery and dispense with the second one in practical use. In that event would'nt you be back to fighting the argument that it is just more efficient because you did not store the excess but put it to use instead?

Thinking of the phrase; "Perpetual motion machine".
A Perpetual motion machine is still a machine. Machines
wear out and break down. So Perpetual Motion is about
generating more excess energy out then what was put into it.
Over time the net excess energy should be able to grow
arbitrarily large.

Lol, Keely once answered to someone asking about a perpetual motion machine, that to make a perpetual motion machine, it extremely simple. It just has to be in balance. But such a machine would be completely useless, as it only would run itself. One couldn't derive energy from such a machine without stopping it. What we want, is a machine out of balance, with which work can be done.

To do so, all you need is to get more energy out than you put in.

Unfortunately. I think the definition is not that simple. For what exactly does it mean: The energy you put in. It can very well be, that the amount of energy is always the same, but a special machine is reversing the entropic direction. Then it derives some kind of energy and accumulates it. So is this also put in? Strictly spoken, yes! So IMHO all, even very strong, what is currently called Overunity machines, actually don't output more energy, than they use. They just transform different states of energy. Some maybe unknown.

You could define it like that. That it outputs more energy, than the "paid" energy you put in. But in this definition every solar cell/wind generator etc. is an OU device. So IMHO it is actually very difficult to exactly define it.
I personally would define an OU device, a device which violates the 2nd LOT, that it has negative entropy.

actually if a PM were possible you could get energy out of it by switching it on a pulse mode, lets say it was a PM wheel hooked to a generator, switching from self run to generator and then back to self run again, you get pulsed energy out so long as you never continuously draw from the source to let it run down all the way. you could use it to charge caps and stuff.

Lol. I think you didn't get what Keely understood by the term "perpetual motion machine". He just meant a machine which runs forever. And this can easily be done. Just rotate a wheel in a magnetic bearing in a pure vacuum and it will rotate forever. But you will never get energy out of it, as as soon as you do this, it decelerates the wheel... Pulsing doesn't really help here...

What he meant, that you need to get a disbalance to get work, is IMHO best explained by Walter Russell. You need to create a polarity, a potential difference. Tesla already saw in this a possible way to create such a machine was to create such a potential well, if it is was somehow attainable. And it is.
All flows are dipolar in both directions. Sensitive people even can see them as red and blue in complete darkness (see Karl von Reichenbach).
Unfortunately our science today only knows the discharging part of this dipolar flow. So all the machines are built on this principle. This is why Schauberger exclaimed: "Ihr bewegt falsch!". We have to use the compressive/generative flow. I think it is quite funny that science doesn't believe in this generative flow, for as long as they believe in the 2nd LOT they will never discover what gravity really is.

A simple example of such a potential well is the good old orgone accumulator of Wilhelm Reich. Purely passive, but it easily violates the 2nd LOT. Namely inside the accumulater the temperature is always higher than outside and 2nd if you place e.g. some wax/paraffin on a wall inside it will start to charge itself electrostatically.
Poor Reich didn't have the real knowledge how this exactly worked, therefore the orgone accumulators are a bit inefficient. But Walter Russell easily describes how these things works and so also how e.g. one can build a drastically stronger accumulator. And then you don't have to pulse anything to get OU...

How was the standard set for watts= hp?

================================================================
By definition:

Horsepower (hp or HP or Hp) is the name of several non-SI units of power. It was originally defined to allow the output of steam engines to be measured and compared with the power output of draft horses. The horsepower was widely adopted to measure the output of piston engines, turbines, electric motors and other machinery. Different regions adopted different definitions of the unit. Most countries now use the SI unit watt (and its multiples) for measurement of power.

The definition of a horsepower unit is different in different applications; application outside of the context of a particular definition will be inaccurate.

    * One mechanical horsepower of 550 foot-pounds per second is equivalent to 745.7 watts.
    * A metric horsepower of 75 kgf-m per second is equivalent to 735.499 watts.
    * A boiler horsepower is used for rating steam boilers and is equivalent to 34.5 pounds of water evaporated per hour at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, or 9,809.5 watts.
    * One horsepower for rating electric motors is equal to 746 watts.
    * A Pferdestärke is a name for a group of similar power measurements used in Germany around the end of the 19th century, all of about one metric horsepower in size.[1][2]
    * An RAC horsepower or British tax horsepower is an estimate based on several engine dimensions.

Where units of horsepower are used for marketing consumer products, often measurement methods are designed by advertisers to maximize the size of the number produced for any product, even if this may not reflect realistic capacity of the product to do work when used in normal conditions.

The last sentence says it all:
Horsepower=$$$$$$

j.

i think its funny that perpetual motion might not even imply either of the two

an OU device with no moving parts may not be considered PM, likewise, a PMM is generally not considered to be an OU device, and a moving OU device would be considered both

then again i guess they'r just words meaning "self runner" and "runs self, and a little more"

i would say most PM and OU devices are not self runners, because most need to be started by something, but then i remembered neither exist yet, at least that we know of

english language is way to complicated

A former forum member @z_p_e had prepared for the members a method of determining OU and I saved a copy of his pdf file on my OU ftp site located here;

http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/Overunity.com%20-%20Forum%20members/z_p_e/

There are many other ways but it always will depend on the nature of the device being operated.

If it is battery run, then show two units, both with same load but one having the OU circuit in place and see how each battery voltage will react while both loads are taking the same watts. If the OU voltage stays the same while the other goes down, then it would be rather obvious.