What do you consider to be OU.

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > bemf > What do you consider to be OU.

2024-05-04, 08:06:02
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

« previous next »

Author Topic: What do you consider to be OU. (Read 50685 times)

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #50 on: 2013-02-20, 23:29:45 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2013-02-20, 23:02:17 but a magnet only works when something is moving Is the earth not a big magnet? And the earth is traveling through space a 666 000 meters a second-i'd say thats moveing And the moon moves right along with us. The big problem is that most still think that the earth is the reference point for all measurment's-were still the center of the universe

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #51 on: 2013-02-20, 23:55:33 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-20, 23:29:45 Is the earth not a big magnet? And the earth is traveling through space a 666 000 meters a second-i'd say thats moveing And the moon moves right along with us. The big problem is that most still think that the earth is the reference point for all measurment's-were still the center of the universe There are a competing theories on why the earth has a magnetic field. The age-old explanation is that is has an iron core. Willie Johnson (GFT Theory) put it this way: "If gravity induces precession and precession induces a current and a current induces a magnetic field then it must be the case that the earth's magnetic field is due to the gravitational precession of the earth around the sun."

ion	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #52 on: 2013-02-21, 00:01:59 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	tinman said: Quote And the earth is traveling through space a 666 000 meters a second-i'd say thats moveing When we are on a fast moving boat, and lift our little pinwheel to the wind, it rotates and provides energy. We are on a fast moving vehicle. We need only find the right form of the pinwheel. Too simplistic thinking, I know. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #53 on: 2013-02-21, 02:49:32 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	our pinwheel has to move relative the wind If the boat is docked, and the wind is blowing, then the pinwheel spins

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #54 on: 2013-02-21, 03:13:00 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3947 tExB=qr	http://www.chemed.net/photonBasics.shtml if you had a way to change the velocity of electrons so that they emitted photons, and this way required less energy than that carried away by the photons, then you would have an interesting perhaps you could squeeze them in some way

giantkiller	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #55 on: 2013-02-21, 04:04:38 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1575 Frequency equals matter...	A stun gun changes current to photons. The photons fly off the discharge. The discharge is a conduction between 2 potentials. --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #56 on: 2013-02-21, 08:58:33 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013-02-20, 15:09:32 That's exactly how I see it, Tinman. However, we don't even have any real mystery yet... do we? I mean, even given all the various claims over all the various years, the reality is that we do not yet have a verified self-runner to be mystified by. Agreed. It's even worse and sad, we have not the least exciting unconventional phenomenon to study!

muDped	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #57 on: 2013-02-21, 21:24:14 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: exnihiloest Agreed. It's even worse and sad, we have not the least exciting unconventional phenomenon to study! There may be a solution to that dilemma, if you are willing and able to expend the effort. Make discreet inquiries in your professional circles into the possibility of employment in military research projects. In time you may find yourself in a location such as Area 51 or its equivalent in your country. What you wish to study is available if you're able to get in the door... But then you'd have to sacrifice your ability to communicate freely with any friends. And other "inconveniences." But many are already there. --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

Rosphere	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #58 on: 2013-02-23, 13:54:53 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Rosphere on 2013-02-20, 23:04:30 The lifespan of overunity ceases upon the discovery of the source. It is a fleeting term, a misnomer. If we accept only one hard definition of overunity then our task becomes truly impossible, time to switch-off our instruments and find new hobbies. However, as any dictionary will show, words often have multiple meanings. Perhaps we can develop and agree upon a second definition of overunity. A definition that will allow us to move forward without squabbling over terms. It should encompass the notion, the feeling that brought 'most' of us together in the first place. Wind and solar energy seem to be on the cusp of our second definition of overunity. Unlike older forms of energy, burning combustibles or damming streams, we do not need to visit localized areas of the planet to tap wind and sunshine. The wind and sunlight come to us. Since some folks already consider these to be overunity sources, we could go ahead and include wind and sunlight in our second definition. However, calm darkness does not provide energy. Thus, wind and sunlight have a localized feeling associated with them, much like other forms of 'underunity' energy. On a calm evening when the gas tank is empty, the batteries are dead, and the wood pile is depleted, we are without energy. All of our current energy sources have an intermittent nature. Our second overunity definition should include an energy source that comes to us like wind and sunshine, but is not intermittent--a constant source of energy that can be used anywhere, anytime. Like the energy tapped by John Galt's motor in the novel, Atlas Shrugged; electricity pulled directly from thin air.

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #59 on: 2013-02-23, 15:18:00 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Rosphere on 2013-02-23, 13:54:53 If we accept only one hard definition of overunity then our task becomes truly impossible, time to switch-off our instruments and find new hobbies. However, as any dictionary will show, words often have multiple meanings. Perhaps we can develop and agree upon a second definition of overunity. A definition that will allow us to move forward without squabbling over terms. It should encompass the notion, the feeling that brought 'most' of us together in the first place. Wind and solar energy seem to be on the cusp of our second definition of overunity. Unlike older forms of energy, burning combustibles or damming streams, we do not need to visit localized areas of the planet to tap wind and sunshine. The wind and sunlight come to us. Since some folks already consider these to be overunity sources, we could go ahead and include wind and sunlight in our second definition. However, calm darkness does not provide energy. Thus, wind and sunlight have a localized feeling associated with them, much like other forms of 'underunity' energy. On a calm evening when the gas tank is empty, the batteries are dead, and the wood pile is depleted, we are without energy. All of our current energy sources have an intermittent nature. Our second overunity definition should include an energy source that comes to us like wind and sunshine, but is not intermittent--a constant source of energy that can be used anywhere, anytime. Like the energy tapped by John Galt's motor in the novel, Atlas Shrugged; electricity pulled directly from thin air. Now we are getting close to an answer. A device that collects and converts energy from the enviroment-an energy that is not man made nor a fossil fuel,that can deliver an output 24 hours a day without intermission. A system that is looped and provides a continual output power of some form-electrical,mechanical or heat. Well while the above sounds good,it seems that we already have this aswell. There seems to be a pattern forming here,in that once again we seem to already have what is considered to be an OU device. Ah well-back to the drawing board.

PhysicsProf	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #60 on: 2013-02-24, 06:24:14 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013-02-16, 16:16:38 I suggest the following modifications: delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs from currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources) + final stored energy - initial stored energy A novel energy device is one for which the delta-energy >1, indicating the presence of a little-known OR un-tapped energy source. 100 years ago, NUCLEAR energy was untapped and would have fit into the definition AT THAT TIME. Not anymore. Cold fusion or cold nuclear transformation (as examples) are untapped and essentially unknown and would fit into the definition. Solar, wind, Peltier devices are "currently well-known and tapped" and would not qualify for ou by the definition I posited above. I think most ou researchers would agree and exclude "currently well-known and tapped" energy sources, but would not exclude cold fusion (as one example of some untapped source that is at least "possible"). Now I suggest another way to demonstrate "ou" -= if it works, that is, for a device whose output is HEAT only, and whose input is electricity from the mains -- driving a motor which runs the heat-producing device. One idea is to have in a large card-board box with a fan and also holding the entire device (or a small electric heater for control runs) -- and look at heat flow to the ambient outside the box, which is kept nearly constant. 1. -- Device runs at (say) 700 watts and the lossy-box heats to (say) 120F, steady temp. 2.-- Then with a space heater (close to 100% conversion to heat) for control, vary the input power until the lossy-box stays at the same temp (say 120 F). 3. Compare the input powers, to determine to first order whether delta-energy>1. Run a long time such that initial stored energy is not important; and equilibrium heat flow is reached for both the device and the control. One may heat up "faster", but here we are measuring the input power for each required to maintain the SAME temperature and thus the same heat flow to the environment outside the box. This method compares electrical power required by the device as a whole (including motor) versus the power required by a simple resistance heater. Same fan in same box (etc) in both cases. Is this a reasonable test?

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #61 on: 2013-02-24, 10:59:19 »
Group: Guest	Firstly there is no OU from heat. Energy from heat is a Maxwell demon, i.e. the transformation of heat energy from a single thermal bath into useful energy (mechanical, electrical...). This hypothetical process obeys the energy conservation. It's a way to get useful energy endlessly, but it's not OU. Secondly a definition of OU that would depend on our knowledge of a system, as this proposed by Physicsprof, is not a scientific definition. For this one who would ignore where the energy comes from, it would be OU and for the other one who knows, it wouldn't be OU?! There is a terrible lack of intellectual requirement in such inconsistent and unprecise definitions. Once again, in order to evacuate the viewpoint of the observer from the OU definition, we must leave our intuitive but misleading sense and define OU relatively to a well described system. If a system showing more ouput energy than input, is given without the extra-energy source or without taking into account the energy flux at the interface between inside and outside (for any reason, including the ignorance that the system is not really closed), then we have OU. If it is defined including the energy source, either inside, or outside but with consideration of the energy flux crossing the interface, then we have not OU. Of course once the source is known, it's natural to take it into account and thus, to no more consider that there is OU. But this is not the point for a definition that must apply in any circumstances independently of the observer.

PhysicsProf	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #62 on: 2013-02-24, 15:36:51 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-24, 10:59:19 Firstly there is no OU from heat. Energy from heat is a Maxwell demon, i.e. the transformation of heat energy from a single thermal bath into useful energy (mechanical, electrical...). This hypothetical process obeys the energy conservation. It's a way to get useful energy endlessly, but it's not OU. I did not say that there would be OU "from heat" -- you are evidently misconstruing what I said, to say this. There is no "Maxwell's demon" in what I said, at all. Quote Secondly a definition of OU that would depend on our knowledge of a system, as this proposed by Physicsprof, is not a scientific definition. For this one who would ignore where the energy comes from, it would be OU and for the other one who knows, it wouldn't be OU?! There is a terrible lack of intellectual requirement in such inconsistent and unprecise definitions. Again, you misconstrue what I said -- which is that delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs from currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources) + final stored energy - initial stored energy It is not just that one person knows the source and another does not, but rather, that the energy source must be " currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources" Notice in particular "and Tapped sources". Would we as a community not agree that cold fusion, which is currently untapped as an energy source, would fit into a reasonable definition of "ou" (if it worked!) ?? Some, like Widom and Larsen, think they know a lot about cold fusion as an energy source; but their theory is certainly not well-known, nor is cold fusion yet tapped as an energy source.

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #63 on: 2013-02-24, 17:21:57 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013-02-24, 15:36:51 I did not say that there would be OU "from heat" -- you are evidently misconstruing what I said, to say this. ... There is no "Maxwell's demon" in what I said, at all. I agree this point. I had in mind the other thread with the "friction heater" and I misinterpreted your post. Quote ... It is not just that one person knows the source and another does not, but rather, that the energy source must be " currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources" ... This definition is still ambiguous and not scientific, this would imply that there is an official knowledge which a definition should be based on. There is clearly incompatibility. "Well-known" can't be the base for an operational definition: science definitions are based only on terms representing physical objects and concepts related to quantified properties.

PhysicsProf	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #64 on: 2013-02-24, 19:56:03 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2994	It would suffice to say, not from "currently TAPPED energy sources". This would exclude tapped energy sources such as wind and solar, but allow for currently untapped sources such as cold fusion.

AllPhase	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #65 on: 2013-02-24, 22:38:39 »
Group: Guest	Good point.

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #66 on: 2013-02-24, 23:38:18 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013-02-24, 19:56:03 It would suffice to say, not from "currently TAPPED energy sources". This would exclude tapped energy sources such as wind and solar, but allow for currently untapped sources such as cold fusion. It would seem that the general consensus is that an OU device will only be OU until the sorce is explained.

giantkiller	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #67 on: 2013-02-24, 23:54:13 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1575 Frequency equals matter...	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-24, 23:38:18 It would seem that the general consensus is that an OU device will only be OU until the source is explained. Finally... As this all is categorized by the viewer's frame of reference which guides the viewpoint. Most soapbox and ivory tower arguments are merely the utmost highest pinnacle being broached by a perceived niavete. Without an idea person in the group of the standardized learned the group never progresses. Those that can not think for themselves will coagulate into a scab of ridicule against any outside thinking. And I do believe we have experienced the sores. Case in point: Check out the NASA videos from the Solar Orbital Helio Observatory particularly the coronal mass ejection items. There are craft sitting, flying, escaping, entering our sun. Say what? 'That's impossible' say the pharisees! Ah but simply change your frame of reference from our band of habitable frequencies to a broader scope of bandwith and strange things become tolerable if not down right accessible levels of thinking... --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

Chet K	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #68 on: 2013-02-26, 14:41:05 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4013	Gk So their messin with our sun now? who knows it could just be the "keepers" topping off the "engine" that keeps this show running? In line with the things that have been said here about OU being nothing more than "perspective". http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/student-invents-device-that-charges-batteries-with-radio-and-wifi-waves-2575672.html So the "kid" figured a way to put "OUR" Background noise to work? HHHMMMMMmmm the Background noise....... As the TinMan says "once we figure out a method to Harvest energy in a completely new and novel way" We'll just run off looking under another bush......... Its all in the Bushes these days..... Thx Chet

ion	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #69 on: 2013-02-26, 15:02:57 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	A typical Ni Cd AA cell has over 4000 Joules of energy when fully charged. Was the battery brought from flat to full charge over one day or just topped up? Now regarding the definition of "charged a AA battery" this could be just bringing the voltage in the cell from 1.199 to 1.200 volts. A more scientific definition of "charge an AA cell" would be : how many Joules were actually captured and stored in the cell? I'll bet it was very few Joules, but this makes for encouraging news. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Chet K	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #70 on: 2013-02-26, 15:09:01 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4013	Sorry I neglected to mention the link came Via the "Portly Pigeon" over here http://www.overunity.com/13334/overunity-device-for-sale-that-charges-batteries/msg353810/#new Thx Chet

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #71 on: 2013-02-26, 15:19:29 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ramset on 2013-02-26, 15:09:01 Sorry I neglected to mention the link came Via the "Portly Pigeon" over here http://www.overunity.com/13334/overunity-device-for-sale-that-charges-batteries/msg353810/#new Thx Chet Overunity device that charges batteries? We know the source-so no OU-no cigar.

ion	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #72 on: 2013-02-26, 15:30:32 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Regarding the students energy receiver: For a better "feel" to the problem, a 1000 mA Hr AA cell has 4320 Joules when fully charged. A toothpick when fully burned liberates around 150 Joules. So to bring an AA cell from flat to full charge would be the equivalent energy of burning 28.8 toothpicks or 1.2 toothpicks per hour. Does anyone really believe there is that much energy arriving at just one receiver? This is 1.2 Watt-Hours divided by 24 hours or 50 milliwatts per hour. The device looks to be about 2x2 by 1/2 inch or 2 cubic inches of volume. There are 1728 cubic inches per cubic foot so we could pack 864 of these per cubic foot. This would mean we have 43.2 watts-Hrs per cubic foot radiated power density if it were real. This would require an awful lot of radiated power from somewhere? I don't want my body near there. The "charged an AA cell" definition is suspect.......or why have solar garden light folk relied on using a solar cell when all they needed was a tiny tuned circuit and rectifier. You figure. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Farrah Day	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #73 on: 2013-02-26, 16:31:03 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ramset on 2013-02-26, 14:41:05 In line with the things that have been said here about OU being nothing more than "perspective". http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/02/student-invents-device-that-charges-batteries-with-radio-and-wifi-waves-2575672.html So the "kid" figured a way to put "OUR" Background noise to work? Thx Chet You'll note he only won second prize in the University competition for this device... first prize apparently went to someone who invented some strange and mysterious OU device called a... Sonic Boiler...!!

ion	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #74 on: 2013-02-26, 17:01:34 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	To further the perspective, a 1000 mA Hr Ni Cd is typically charged at the C/10 rate or 100mA / Hr. for 10 hours. Since he is charging over 24 Hours, the rate would be 41.67 mA per hour @ approximately 1.2 Volts. This equates to 50.00 mW per hour. This fairly well is in agreement with the prior estimate of 50 mW per hour. EX, being a radio operator, can you chime in on this? The question then is what field intensity at the receiver is required to harvest that much power (50 mW) per hour? I suspect the sum of all reasonable ambient radiated emissions converging on a receiver is much less than this, but it would be interesting to know the numbers. « Last Edit: 2013-02-26, 17:49:16 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-05-04, 08:06:02

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2