As we are all here to try and come up with an OU device,or reserch so called OU devices-what do you consider to be an OU device?
Befor we can try and find something,we first must know what we are looking for.
One member has put forth his understanding of an OU device,but rather than clutter up that thread which was related to a certain device-i thought i would start a thread devoted to this very question.
So one answer so far is this-Only OU could be a real progress and for that, we don't need to compete with conventional technology, we have just to show a self-sustaining device.
If all we have to do to have an OU device is to have a self sustaining device-then we already have that.
Most on other forums will say that an OU device is a device that draws in extra energy from the environment to give us a larger output than the input that is supplied by us human's (energy we have to pay for)
This is also considered to be a free energy machine.
But if some one was to put forth a simple system that fills all the requirement above,but it was something that already exists-then it dosnt fit the class of an OU or free energy device?
A simple example:
1 x 80 watt solar pannel
1 x charge controller
1 x 80 amp hour 12 volt battery
And 1 x 5 watt LED light.
If this simple system is put together,it will run that light continuously 24 hours a day -365 days a year.
This system fit's all the requirements above to be an OU device,but is not considered to be one because it is now a mainstream device (the solar pannel)
But as long as the sun rises every day,the device will continue to opperate-a device that uses energy provided by our enviroment.
There are many other devices and systems that capture enviromental energy,and convert it into useful energy that we can use.
Another is tidal power-every day the tide will rise and fall.
So is it that we are looking for an exotic OU device that dose not yet exist?
Dose a device have to pull in extra magnetic field energy from our enviroment to be considered OU,but if it is pulling extra energy from our enviroment in the way of sun light-it's not an OU device?
So the very simple question of !! what is an OU device !! can be quite tricky to answer.
So what do you consider to be an OU device?
An OU device is one for which the energy balance is greater than 1.
delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy
Notice that I conveniently left off energy that may cross the boundary of the system. :)
I agree with you, solar panels are OU, windmills are OU, etc. ,etc.. But because people understand where the energy comes from, its not as mysterious and exciting, as I'm sure we all imagine an OU device to be.
Energy will come from somewhere or will be converted, weather we understand it or not.
EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.02.16, 05:05:54
...
Notice that I conveniently left off energy that may cross the boundary of the system. :)
...
That's why your definition is insufficient. OU is relative to the system that you are considering.
So here is what I propose to add:
We consider an
apparently closed system and we apply your formula to it:
delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy
If delta energy >0, we have OU for this system as defined above.
OU can be due to:
- 1 energy out of nothing (perpetual motion of type 1)
- 2 energy from ambiant source that can be replenished by the used energy: typically heat (perpetual motion of type 2)
- 3 energy from an unknown source crossing the boundary of the apparently closed system. When the source is identified and we see that it is depleted proportionally to the apparent extra-energy, the device becomes conventional and without OU if the system is defined with the source included.
Imho type 1 is unlikely.
Type 2 is the more interesting because the most part of our useful energy finally ends in heat (light, TV, PC, cars...) and so, the process is looped by the return of the used energy to the ambient source.
Type 3 is pseudo-OU. Nevertheless it's interesting if the source is not extinguishable at a human scale, for example the sun. Type 3 is not distinguishable from type 1 while the source remains unknown.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.16, 10:45:39
That's why your definition is insufficient. OU is relative to the system that you are considering.
So here is what I propose to add:
We consider an apparently closed system and we apply your formula to it:
delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy
If delta energy >1, we have OU for this system as defined above.
OU can be due to:
- 1 energy out of nothing (perpetual motion of type 1)
- 2 energy from ambiant source that can be replenished by the used energy: typically heat (perpetual motion of type 2)
- 3 energy from an unknown source crossing the boundary of the apparently closed system. When the source is identified and we see that it is depleted proportionally to the apparent extra-energy, the device becomes conventional and without OU if the system is defined with the source included.
Imho type 1 is unlikely.
Type 2 is the more interesting because the most part of our useful energy finally ends in heat (light, TV, PC, cars...) and so, the process is looped by the return of the used energy to the ambient source.
Type 3 is pseudo-OU. Nevertheless it's interesting if the source is not extinguishable at a human scale, for example the sun. Type 3 is not distinguishable from type 1 while the source remains unknown.
There is a very real type 4. which you missed out, that is chemical change or electro chemical change.
This is very real, the first part "chemical change" may not be possible to loop back!! but the second part, electro chemical change most definitely can. We are only just touching on the possibilities with this, and it is OU which can be used.
We are still learning about electrons and their smaller parts, electrinos, which have a very high energy state once triggered and can be triggered with less energy than they can give and be harvested.
Type 2. has just been done by MIT with their cooling LED, though I think they are not the inventors though they like to think they are the only inventors C.C.
We have the same old arguements, if we spent the time doing rather than arguing, then we just might see a lot lot more of what is deemed to be impossible :(
Mike 8)
Here is the link
http://www.lighting.co.uk/news/mit-creates-led-that-cools-its-surrounding-environment/8627537.article
Mike 8)
Quote from: EMdevices on 2013.02.16, 05:05:54
An OU device is one for which the energy balance is greater than 1.
delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy
Notice that I conveniently left off energy that may cross the boundary of the system. :)
I agree with you, solar panels are OU, windmills are OU, etc. ,etc.. But because people understand where the energy comes from, its not as mysterious and exciting, as I'm sure we all imagine an OU device to be.
Energy will come from somewhere or will be converted, weather we understand it or not.
EM
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.
Quote from: Centraflow on 2013.02.16, 12:09:08
There is a very real type 4. which you missed out, that is chemical change or electro chemical change.
...
There is no type 4. This point is clearly considered in EM's formula.
"final stored energy - initial stored energy" includes any chemical or electro change. It includes any state change involving energy. It includes also nuclear energy, change of gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy and so on...
It's useless to add a particular case to a more general rule that was already including it.
Quote
Type 2. has just been done by MIT with their cooling LED
This is simply false. It's true that a part of the thermal energy is used to produced light and that is why there is more light than previously calculated. It's false that it constitutes a Maxwell demon and so, it's not a perpetual motion of type 2:
"
At first glance this conversion of waste heat to useful photons could appear to violate fundamental laws of thermodynamics, but lead researcher Parthiban Santhanam of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology explains that the process is perfectly consistent with the second law of thermodynamics."
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/mar/08/led-converts-heat-into-light
I would be careful on saying it is simply false as you are reading what was altered after Parthiban Santhanam first published this back in the middle of 2011 and then revised also in 2011 with great haste. He most probably had his hand whacked with a ruler >:-). MIT can't imply to break such a law, they would loose their valuable funding, so they moved the goal posts a little, as many do so to fit the laws.
I have the original somewhere, I did have it on my computer until I had my files removed back in August of last year, but when I find my hard copy I will scan it and post it.
Well that is to say that either could be right or wrong, infact we are back where we started "not knowing one way or the other" unless we have the money and lab to do the same as in MIT :-\ and I most certainly don't.
Mike 8)
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.
@PhysicsProf,
I like your definition. I shall be sending a
triple-tested FLEET board to poynt99 in this Forum and to many others (a total of 100 is planned). Hopefully, you have aleady received one in the mail. You should be able to pick it up at your
old address.
The triple tested FLEET boards will show that the
Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power as measured on a dual Atten Oscilloscope (2 channe) system. Two different models of Atten Oscilloscopes were used. The purpose of sending the FLEET boards out is to have different organizations use different makes of oscilloscopes to
confirm the experimental results. They are encouraged to replicate and improve.
The Lead-out Energy suggested in this case is the electron motion energy. As already accepted, electrons orbit around the nucleus. Such electrons have kinetic energy. In addition, a circular motion electron will show magnetic properties (a dipole). There are trillions of electrons associated with any object. In this case, we focus on the electrical circuit and in particular,
the toroid with pulsing electrical and magnetic fields. At the right matching of the oscillating LCR and the pulsing transistor circuits, the electrons will be aligned and some of their motion energy can be extracted (lead-out or brought-in).
It is suggested (and to be proven shortly with the FLEET boards) that the energy used to align these electrons can be less than the energy that can be extracted. This is a logical explanation of getting more Average Output Energy than Average Input Energy. Should such a FLEET board be considered as OU now?
Once the mainstream scientific community accepts the above, the floodgate will be open. Many different devices using the electron motion energy will emerge as legitimate. Some are already posted on the Internet.
When you have a chance, please test the oscilloscope-test-ready board already sent to you thoroughly. Hopefully, many of the other 99 organizations will do the same. Then Leading-out electron motion energy will be accepted (from OU to standard scientific understanding).
May the Almighty Guide us to benefit the World.
Quote from: ltseung888 on 2013.02.17, 08:31:21
@PhysicsProf,
I like your definition. I shall be sending a triple-tested FLEET board to poynt99 in this Forum and to many others (a total of 100 is planned). Hopefully, you have aleady received one in the mail. You should be able to pick it up at your old address.
The triple tested FLEET boards will show that the Average Output Power is greater than the Average Input Power as measured on a dual Atten Oscilloscope (2 channe) system. Two different models of Atten Oscilloscopes were used. The purpose of sending the FLEET boards out is to have different organizations use different makes of oscilloscopes to confirm the experimental results. They are encouraged to replicate and improve.
The Lead-out Energy suggested in this case is the electron motion energy. As already accepted, electrons orbit around the nucleus. Such electrons have kinetic energy. In addition, a circular motion electron will show magnetic properties (a dipole). There are trillions of electrons associated with any object. In this case, we focus on the electrical circuit and in particular, the toroid with pulsing electrical and magnetic fields. At the right matching of the oscillating LCR and the pulsing transistor circuits, the electrons will be aligned and some of their motion energy can be extracted (lead-out or brought-in).
It is suggested (and to be proven shortly with the FLEET boards) that the energy used to align these electrons can be less than the energy that can be extracted. This is a logical explanation of getting more Average Output Energy than Average Input Energy. Should such a FLEET board be considered as OU now?
Once the mainstream scientific community accepts the above, the floodgate will be open. Many different devices using the electron motion energy will emerge as legitimate. Some are already posted on the Internet.
When you have a chance, please test the oscilloscope-test-ready board already sent to you thoroughly. Hopefully, many of the other 99 organizations will do the same. Then Leading-out electron motion energy will be accepted (from OU to standard scientific understanding).
May the Almighty Guide us to benefit the World.
Whats this got to do with this thread?
This is a thread for posting your understanding as to what you believe an OU device is.
This is not a thread to peddle an un proven OU device.
Do you not have enough threads already on your !! yet to be proven !! device?
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.17, 10:56:55
Quote
Quote from: ltseung888 on Today at 09:31:21
@PhysicsProf,
...
I like your definition.
...
The Lead-out Energy suggested in this case is the electron motion energy.
...
Whats this got to do with this thread?
This is a thread for posting your understanding as to what you believe an OU device is.
This is not a thread to peddle an un proven OU device.
I agree, tinman.
Our troll repeats his allegeance to PhysicsProf and want to impose here once again his Divine Lead-out nonsense.
This has nothing to do here.
@Centraflow
Remember another extraordinary announce, the break of the light speed by CERN, asking verifications and later shown to be a mistake. Here the break of the second law of thermodynamics has not even been claimed by the MIT, and even less been confirmed. So "Type 2. has just been done by MIT with their cooling LED" is at least a prematured announce. We are in the range of tens pW, so there are many possible experimental flaws and other possible theoretical explanations than a 2nd law break.
I put the paper here (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Dossiers/Thermo/MaxwellDemon/P%20Santhanam%20-%20Thermoelectrically%20Pumped%20Light-Emitting%20Diodes%20Operating%20above%20Unity%20Efficiency%20(LED)%20-%20PRL%20108%2C%20097403%20(2012).pdf).
Even if it was a Maxwell demon, which is not yet proved, it would be useless until the watt range is reached, which means improvements representing a hundred billion times the actual setup. So an "efficient" type 2 is still needed in our quest.
Lawrence, you are the only one who commented on my definition (so far), and I appreciate your doing so.
QuoteQuoteQuote from: PhysicsProf on 2013-02-16, 17:16:38
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.
@PhysicsProf,
I like your definition. I shall be sending a triple-tested FLEET board to poynt99 in this Forum and to many others (a total of 100 is planned). Hopefully, you have aleady received one in the mail. You should be able to pick it up at your old address.
I find it courageous and appropriate for you to be willing to
send out pre-tested devices to me and POYNT99 and others for testing, and I will be glad to do so once I travel back -- in less than two weeks now.
exnihilo: Do you have any devices for testing?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.02.17, 13:59:17
...
exnihilo: Do you have any devices for testing?
To not be outside of the current topic with my reply, what's the goal of your question?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.17, 15:13:04
To not be outside of the current topic with my reply, what's the goal of your question?
We've homed in on a good definition of ou (IMHO), or delta-energy >1, and I'm curious -- hence the question.
The ouzzle still exists.
A little bit of food and the human body explodes with energy.
The ratio is phenominal yet science hasnt been able to measure it. Oh sure its caloric intake/output but the measurement isn't even understandable.
Quote from: DeepCut
I tell you what i think is OverUnity - The Human Body.
Precisely! Now we're getting somewhere.
And, by extension, all living things.
Life itself.
Quote
I am now preparing the "guaranteed OU boards" for the various forums.
There will be a small, standalone demo board (battery and battery holder not included) and an oscilloscope-test -ready board.
The demo board is meant to stimulate interest. Connect the battery for 10 seconds and the LED will be ON for over 20 minutes. The first 2 minutes will shine with full brightness. Thus connect for 10 seconds and then disconnect for 2 minutes and repeat. The LED will shine with constant brightness. Will such a set up save electricity?
If you want the capacitor to fully discharge first, just connect the red and white wires together for 30 seconds. The LED will be OFF within 2 seconds and total discharge as displayed on the oscilloscope will occur well before the 30 seconds. To ensure a fully charged condition to impress your audience, connect the battery for 1 minute for continued full brightness at the beginning.
I use such demo boards at casual meetings to stimulate interest. It is a good conversation opener. It is also an inexpensive gift that is well appreciated.
There will be assigned numbers to ensure quality results.
Number 33 - overunityresearch.com
Number 38 - overunity.com
Number 39 - energetic Forum
These demo boards are shown below and will be triple-tested before shipment. They will be part of the package.
More on the oscilloscope-test-ready board later.
Pouring out the Divine Wine.
-------------------------------
end quote
This is from our devine brother from the other thread claiming gauranteed overunity.
Its very clear that the perception of overunity will be capitalised on by all who's only mode of operation is
to perpetuate their own self deception which is what gives most religions a very bad name.
sometimes devine wine is what perpetuates this process ...alcohol ? devine? gimme a break !
Many more will be draged into it ....will it be you ?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2013.02.17, 20:09:52
We've homed in on a good definition of ou (IMHO), or delta-energy >1, and I'm curious -- hence the question.
This thread is about what we consider to be OU.
If I have devices to test, is out of topic.
The EM's formula "delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy >0" is perfect, provided that OU in question is relative to a well defined system, closed or at least apparently closed.
The mention that you want add '"from currently WELL-KNOWN and TAPPED sources" is useless, because if they are not known or uncertain, they have not to be used, they are outside of the strictness required by science, especially in matter of equations. So it would be an unnecessary complication removing the clarity of the synthetic equation from EMdevices.
It must be also emphasized that measurement data verifying this equation are not enough to prove OU, it's just a help for the experimenter. The only strong experimental proof of OU is an autonomous functioning, with a final check that the state of the system at the end of the test is the same than at the beginning (otherwise stored energy could have been used). Then the formula allows to precise the COP.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.18, 10:49:48
The EM's formula "delta energy = sum(energy outputs) - sum(energy inputs) + final stored energy - initial stored energy >0" is perfect, provided that OU in question is relative to a well defined system, closed or at least apparently closed.
"...a well defined system...closed or apparently closed".
They never are. That is the point.
Also, the charged particles in space/air are not going to be quantified.
I think the best definition is one which Patrick K proposed at one of the UK Free energy Conferences:
This is the ratio that counts. I think he said:
Energy output by device
-------------------------------------- = OU
Energy that YOU put in
(i.e. he sidesteps the issue of the energy drawn into the system)
@Dumped
QuotePrecisely! Now we're getting somewhere.
And, by extension, all living things.
Life itself.
I think science has a major problem with the concept of "life", first in that they have completely failed to reproduce it on even the most feeble scale and second they cannot openly acknowledge it because they cannot explain it.
How could they even begin to explain it?, in the beginning it is little more than a few cells which "grows" and as it does violates Entropy in that it concentrates energy and becomes more organized so much that it starts organizing everything around it. Not only does it become more organized but exhibits intelligence which has in itself defined what science is, no life no science.
I understand some like to preach science as if it were something in itself or a religion however fundamentally it is simply the popular opinion of semi-intelligent life forms and little more. We define science based on our knowledge which is always changing and always growing, imagine that, we have created a system we hope will help us understand everything and yet it cannot even begin to define it's creators which is us, lol.
AC
AllCanadian,
I think you're absolutely correct.
Dumped
I like this kind of debate because I think the logic behind it is fundamentally flawed on various levels. Some would have us believe OU is impossible and they say there is no proof to support it however there is no proof either way. However we can gain some insight into the nature of the problem by analysing the motives of each party which relates directly to psychology.
The thing to remember is that most people who defend their beliefs with logic always try to distance themselves from their own personal opinions. They state something cannot be true because science say's so but what is science?, it is the "observation" of natural phenomena to understand how nature works. Thus the truth of a matter is dependent on what the observer thinks they are seeing which is open to interpretation. However this is not what most experts imply and they try to take themselves and the act of observing out of the equation. They try to make the act of observation impersonal as if they are not an integral part of it and their opinion of what they think they are observing has no importance.
It is quite comical because it is kind of like saying I am a human being and I make mistakes, I have emotions and opinions however all of this humanity just disappears the moment I look through a microscope or a telescope and what I think I see must be the whole truth. As well they also try to justify their own opinions based on others opinions which is a way to impersonalize second and third party opinions simply because they agree with them. As if the other opinions are beyond question therefore their opinion which agrees with the others must be true,lol.
I guess I have a bad attitude because I think both sides of the debate are fundamentally flawed and many try to imply their opinion is not really an opinion at all which seems kind of immature. Were all human and bound by the same general rules whether we want to believe it or not.
AC
@Paul-R
QuoteEnergy output by device
-------------------------------------- = OU
Energy that YOU put in
I can't say that I believe in OU by definition but have no problem with free energy from an unknown source which may be exactly the same thing. In which case a greater output than input is a requirement. I guess the real question is does it matter?, do we really have to start bashing each other over semantics and get nowhere or would it be easier to simply concentrate on ways to achieve our goals.
You know it is interesting to note that those who are critical of either definition don't seem to want anything in regards to rational debate. Many spam post to make their opinion know then make degrading statements which ceases all debate. In most cases I have never heard a single argument as to how we could achieve our goals only why it is stupid to even try which seems rather immature in my opinion because they are not part of the solution.
Maybe we need a more general solution, why not simply agree that we need a better way to power our world with no regard to the source?. It may be that we need a new more universal term to describe any device in which the output is greater than the input, a new term most would agree with to start a new beginning, why not?.
Let's try that, it is not overunity because unity is relative, that is a solar cell could be seen as OU unless the sun is known and included in the system. Therefore we need a general term which disregards the source of energy or where it may have come from. It is not free energy because we as humanity have decided everything has value and a cost associated with it hence we have decided it can never be truly free. So what is it?...
AC
What is OU ?
It is that which is much sought after by mere mortals ,concealed and controlled by those who play God with other peoples lives
and ultimately the only winners at "this" Level are the liars for higher [also called lawyers in some parts] and the money men.............
On another Note
"What" is OU
that depends on who's footing the bill..
Thx
Chet
I here a lot of, well, where does the extra energy come from? Some even say extra electrons...
As for the extra energy, lets say for example, if someone had a specially wound transformer, and even a special core and configuration. Lets say it were possible that the primary was able to induce more into the secondary. By way of its specialness, the secondary doesnt affect the primary the same way like a normal transformer. Like the specialness lends to a way of fooling the primary and secondary into believing that the other is different than what they really are.
Lets say that we have a special transformer that has 10v 1a input and 20v 1a output. If the primary and secondary were running continuously in this mode described, there should be the same amount of electrons flowing through each coil. Where did the extra electrons come into play? There are none. They are just being pushed around, because they are there. :D But there is more energy because the secondary thinks it was induced as much from the primary. Theoretically speaking with a load that pulls 1a at 20v.
So the secondary was tricked into producing 20v from 10v at the same amperage. If there is a 'trick', a way to do it that is not known or well known yet, that can be instilled in a transformer to make it special, and it were understood 'how' the special transformer functioned, physically, whether it be gating the fields, electromagnetic/electric leveraging. air gap cores, even with magnets, or by way of different windings or multiple cores for separate 'magnetic circuits' within, then might we still be looking for where that extra energy comes from?
I dont think that we 'always' have to hold to the story that the energy has to come from somewhere else. Though all those that look upon these devices and ideas with unbreakable doubt, it is the first thing they will tell you. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin
I dont think that we 'always' have to hold to the
story that the energy has to come from somewhere
else. Though all those that look upon these devices
and ideas with unbreakable doubt, it is the first thing
they will tell you. ;)
Though we may hope after hope wish to think otherwise,
unfortunately, it is true.
The "black" in Black Projects is not without meaning. At
the very deepest (and darkest) levels it is known that the
energy does come from "somewhere else."
Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.18, 16:56:28
"...a well defined system...closed or apparently closed".
They never are. That is the point.
That's not the point. We don't know if they are closed or not in terms of input/output energy, but we know if they are closed or not inside the state of the art (scientific knowledge). "Apparently closed" means "closed relative to the state of the art in scientific matter, from the viewpoint of the energy". This condition is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate something new in matter of energy in case of the EM's formula shows OU>0. We search for a breakthrough that the formula can confirm.
Quote
I think the best definition is one which Patrick K proposed at one of the UK Free energy Conferences:
This is the ratio that counts. I think he said:
Energy output by device
-------------------------------------- = OU
Energy that YOU put in
Insufficient formula:
- the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented.
- according to this formula, nuclear energy from radioactive matter inside the device would be "OU" (in EM's formula, this is prevented by the term "final stored energy - initial stored energy").
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.19, 09:47:01
- the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented.
Cling on to your beliefs, Exnihiloest, and you need never feel insecure.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.16, 04:17:09
If all we have to do to have an OU device is to have a self sustaining device-then we already have that.
Most on other forums will say that an OU device is a device that draws in extra energy from the environment to give us a larger output than the input that is supplied by us human's (energy we have to pay for)
This is also considered to be a free energy machine.
But if some one was to put forth a simple system that fills all the requirement above,but it was something that already exists-then it dosnt fit the class of an OU or free energy device?
A simple example:
1 x 80 watt solar pannel
1 x charge controller
1 x 80 amp hour 12 volt battery
And 1 x 5 watt LED light.
If this simple system is put together,it will run that light continuously 24 hours a day -365 days a year.
This system fit's all the requirements above to be an OU device,but is not considered to be one because it is now a mainstream device (the solar pannel)
But as long as the sun rises every day,the device will continue to opperate-a device that uses energy provided by our enviroment.
Just to bring this around to the original page one post, and my two-penneth.
I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device. This device merely converts one source of energy to another, and if the Sun goes out, then the system stops working - hence it requires a constant (or regular) source of input energy. I see this example as being no different from boiling a saucepan of water over an active volcano! Sure the energy is effectively free to us, but it is not OU.
I mean, surely no one would consider a 365 day Grandfather clock as an OU device simply because it will merrily tick-tock away for a year before it stops? Pull the weights to the top, set the pendulum swinging and the clock will tell the tiime for a whole year without further energy input. Gravity does the work... but sadly like Tseungs device, the energy eventually runs out.
Tseung seems to think that his Joule Thief is OU for the time it takes to stop working - lol, he should move onto Grandfather clocks, he gets more OU for his time... or should that be more time for his OU? :-\
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.02.19, 19:10:23
Just to bring this around to the original page one post, and my two-penneth.
I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device. This device merely converts one source of energy to another, and if the Sun goes out, then the system stops working - hence it requires a constant (or regular) source of input energy. I see this example as being no different from boiling a saucepan of water over an active volcano! Sure the energy is effectively free to us, but it is not OU.
I mean, surely no one would consider a 365 day Grandfather clock as an OU device simply because it will merrily tick-tock away for a year before it stops? Pull the weights to the top, set the pendulum swinging and the clock will tell the tiime for a whole year without further energy input. Gravity does the work... but sadly like Tseungs device, the energy eventually runs out.
Tseung seems to think that his Joule Thief is OU for the time it takes to stop working - lol, he should move onto Grandfather clocks, he gets more OU for his time... or should that be more time for his OU? :-\
If the sun go's out,the last thing we will be worried about is an OU device.
An OU device has to get it's extra energy from some where?,as we cannot create energy-only transform it from one form to another.
So it must come from an enviromental sorce,such as the sun provides that energy input to the solar pannel-wich converts it from one form to another.
At the very least,the solar pannel must be seen as a free energy device.
So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing?
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.19, 22:14:52
So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing?
The intrinsic angular momentum of particles (or constituents if you don't like that word).
Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.19, 17:03:21
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-19, 10:47:01
- the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented
Cling on to your beliefs, Exnihiloest, and you need never feel insecure.
Irrelevant statement (ad hominem).
What don't you understand, Paul-R, about the need of defining the boundaries of the device in order to identify what is "power in" and "power out"?
I'm not sure that you will ever understand this but I could try to explain you...
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.02.20, 02:29:54
The intrinsic angular momentum of particles (or constituents if you don't like that word).
This would deplete the angular momentum and thus, energy from elsewhere should be needed to maintain it.
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.02.19, 19:10:23
...
I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device.
...
Only because you know that the energy comes from the sun and the system is not closed. If you ignored it, you would see OU.
We must define OU relative to a (a priori) closed system.
Imagine that we ignore the existence of the sun and our system is a solar panel.
We define our closed system as being the solar panel, its boundaries are the material surfaces delimiting its volume.
Therefore we see more energy out than in, nothing is depleted inside, so
we have OU because the system is supposed to be closed and the EM's formula is >0.
We are very happy that our panel is an OU device and now we want to know if the energy is created from nothing (type 1), from ambient heat (type 2) or for an inextinguishable source (type 3). We lead experiments and observe a flux of energy coming from the sun. Thus our system must be considered open, and after defining the interfaces of our system with the outside, we can still apply EM's formula, calculate that the "power in" (light) crossing the interface is more than the electrical "power out",
therefore we have no more OU relative to this open system.
This is the test method that I suggest for any apparently closed system outputting energy.
OU depends on the definition of the system that is studied, it is relative to it. There is not absolute OU except for a perpetual motion of type 1.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.19, 22:14:52
An OU device has to get it's extra energy from some where?,as we cannot create energy-only transform it from one form to another.
So it must come from an enviromental sorce,such as the sun provides that energy input to the solar pannel-wich converts it from one form to another.
At the very least,the solar pannel must be seen as a free energy device.
So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing?
Agreed, additional energy to overcome inherent system losses must come from somewhere, which puts me of a mind that there will never be such a thing as a true OU device, merely a perceived OU device. The best we can hope for is to maximise efficiency and find a way of utilising the energy around us, whether it be from the immediate environment or the Cosmos - and I think most of us would be quite happy with that.
A solar panel derives it's energy from the Sun and so is effectively free to us, but I still wouldn't expect Pout to be greater than Pin. I think the more mysterious the apparent OU energy is, the more intriguing. A simple electrical cct that could light an LED continuously (that is, forever) and at the same intensity would only be considered OU (as Exn has alluded to) until the nature of the additional energy was determined. Though if Tseung is anything to go by, we are still quite a long way from achieving this.
I quite agree that many things can seem like OU until you discover and account for the additional energy being inputted (or drawn) into the system. To me the fascination would be to discover the nature of this additional energy, and ways to efficiently utilise it. All this said, I'm yet to see anyone produce a so-called OU device whereby the apparent additional energy can't be easily explained - in fact I'm yet to see anything that has impressed me by running itself, which let's face it, is the ultimate goal and indeed the ultimate test.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.20, 07:36:09
What don't you understand, Paul-R, about the need of defining the boundaries of the
device in order to identify what is "power in" and "power out"?
You have to deal with what is real. Consider the high voltage high frequency banging of
coils. There are no boundaries that can be dealt with. That is the point. That is the snag.
You could put into an equation a term like "the energy content of space/environment.
But then, your problems are only just beginning.
It is my belief that any so called overunity device will convert one kind of energy to another so overunity would be the term used by somebody who knew nothing about the energy source .
Once learned it would known by the maker to be a conversion device.
I think that what we are looking for is something that taps the energy that is around us .
The question is can such a device cannot exist in the capatalist environment we are all attached to .
The money men would always wind up with it.
It is my opinion that the money men are held back but at a far more advanced level where interests that the common "us" do not even come close to dealing with directly .
Perhaps when we all learn that we all have enough, start sharing , and stop blowing each other up, things will change .
But then, I might be entirely wrong
Quote from: Paul-R on 2013.02.20, 10:06:55
You have to deal with what is real. Consider the high voltage high frequency banging of
coils. There are no boundaries that can be dealt with. That is the point. That is the snag.
You could put into an equation a term like "the energy content of space/environment.
But then, your problems are only just beginning.
You are really stopped by the least problem. The boundaries can be the surface of an enclosing container designed to prevent EM waves, sound and so on to escape, and having well known interfaces to observe what is going in and out. That's what I call "to deal with what is real", otherwise you don't deal with reality, you undergo its diktats.
So -the reason i started this thread and asked the question !! what is overunity to you !! is because of a comment ION made to me on the nauden thread
Quote:-True, incremental improvements are worthwhile and are being pursued worldwide to alleviate the energy crisis, and is the subject of many other forums, however the intent of this forum is overunity research. In that regard we can view EX's statement:
Now while i agree with the comment from ION (the intent of this forum is overunity reserch) it would seem that going by most comment's-there is no overunity device's.
The reason i say this is-in most peoples eye's here,it would seem that it will only be concidered to be OU until the energy sorce is explained.
It will then become just another solar pannel.
This is where the name ! overunity reserch ! becomes an interesting name for the forum.
It's almost saying-we are here reserching something that dosnt exist?
I think maybe we are serching for a mystery and not overunity.
A challenge to explain the sorce of energy,just as those 100 years ago would have been trying to explain the solar cell when it was first invented.
But what if some one actualy made a working PMM?
Lets say that to magnetise the magnets in the PMM took 200 watts of energy-but that PMM which was driving a generator produced 500 watts befor the magnets were depleeted.
Would this be an OU device?.
We would then have an action of 200 watts ,and a reaction of 500 watt's-this just opens another can of worm's
It would seem my very simple question is quite difficult to answer-and we all seem to have our own ideas as to what overunity is-or is not.
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.20, 07:39:41
This would deplete the angular momentum and thus, energy from elsewhere should be needed to maintain it.
Yes, and this is what occurs in a homopolar generator.
Perhaps there is a natural way to replentish the angular momentum that we have not discovered yet.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.20, 14:40:09
I think maybe we are serching for a mystery and not overunity.
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. :(
Straight from SMs mouth:
QuoteOnce learned it would known by the maker to be a conversion device.
Consider the hydroelectric dam. It allows potential energy to accumulate by creating a barrier to a natural flow.
We perceive it as solar driven, evaporating water to the atmosphere in the form of vapor, which then condenses and finds its way to the back side of the dam. Then a portion is allowed to flow that we tap.
Since it is the "form" of the dam that creates the barrier, are there other barriers to natural flow that we can create other "forms" to accumulate and utilize energy?.
Being solar driven the hydro dam's true operation would involve questions of where the sun came from and so on leading to some very large mysteries. Although the ultimate answer may be there, I, for one, lack the perspective to properly contemplate these mysteries and thus arrive at the "ultimate solution".
I would, however, be interested in a practical device that could act in the manner of the "barrier" that could allow energy to accumulate and be tapped. In the larger picture, it may not be true OU according to some of the definitions given, but might satisfy our energy needs on an individual basis.
Quote from: ION on 2013.02.20, 15:22:53
I would, however, be interested in a practical device that could act in the manner of the "barrier" that could allow energy to accumulate and be tapped. In the larger picture, it may not be true OU according to some of the definitions given, but might satisfy our energy needs on an individual basis.
One of my first post describe's what you mention above.
The battery is the barrier,the sun is the energy and the light's are the tap's
Now i know-this is just main stream,so of no interest here.
But what about a gravity device?
Yes-we have gravity powered devices aswell.
These devices deliver 1000s of Kw's.
Here is the big problem.People see gravity as being a vertical force,but the ocean's of the world also see an oscilating horizontal force aswell.
From this we have tidle power-power station's.
As long as the moon keeps on moving around the earth-the energy will keep comeing.
Another main stream system-so no interest here.
Do we see a pattern forming?
What we think may be fantastic today,will be another main stream device tomorow-and then we will be looking for the next.
What we have here is perpetual motion,in that once we discover the energy input-we will move on to the next device.
This will keep going until the end of time.
But first we need the next device,so as we have an energy to look for.
How does gravity transfer angular momentum between objects without physical contact?
Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013.02.20, 15:09:32
...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. :(
There have been a few mysterious devices which seemed
to produce the "Overunity" so much sought after. Oddly,
those devices have not been successfully replicated by
any of the numerous experimenters striving to do so.
Until we are prepared to deal seriously with the "Alien"
question, and beyond, it will indeed remain a mystery for
the many. The real source of what seems to be "Overunity"
is too fearful a thought for most to come to terms with.
Disclosure is forthcoming. Disappointment will be widespread.
Man tends to overlook the enormous energy provided by our
Sun, in all its forms, to Planet Earth continually. Were we able
to harness but a small fraction of that we'd have many times
more energy available to all inhabitants of the Globe than
is presently produced by all of the fuel wasting "grids" combined.
But then, those who are in control of our World System know this
well...
Quote from: Grumpy on 2013.02.20, 20:19:55
How does gravity transfer angular momentum between objects without physical contact?
The very same way magnets do.
Quote from: tinman on 2013.02.20, 22:40:10
The very same way magnets do.
but a magnet only works when something is moving
overunity
over unity
> 1
energy out/in > 1
energy out > energy in
Out and in...
to and from...
a bounded space.
Bordered by whom?
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013.02.20, 08:39:29
Only because you know that the energy comes from the sun and the system is not closed. If you ignored it, you would see OU.
...
OU depends on the definition of the system that is studied, it is relative to it. ...
I agree, the lifespan of overunity ceases upon the discovery of the source. It is a fleeting term, a misnomer.
overunityresearch.com
misnomerresearch.com?
"Oops! Google Chrome could not find misnomerresearch.com"
It is available, should we take it?
>:(
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
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."
tinman said:
QuoteAnd 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.
our pinwheel has to move relative the wind
If the boat is docked, and the wind is blowing, then the pinwheel spins
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
A stun gun changes current to photons.
The photons fly off the discharge.
The discharge is a conduction between 2 potentials.
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! >:(
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.
Quote from: Rosphere on 2013.02.20, 23:04:30The 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.
8)
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.
8)
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.
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?
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?! C.C 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.
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.
QuoteSecondly 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?! C.C 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.
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.
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.
Good point.
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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...!! :-*
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.
I wonder if a solar tracking system for pv arrays would meet the criteria for an overunity device ?
@ION
Quotehe 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.
It doesn't work like that, we can not pack the receivers too close to each other because they interfere and detune. I showed this in my wireless power videos from a few years ago.
This "invention" or project is nothing new. There's been a product out there for a while, and probably not just one.
I'm actually working on a concept to coherently tune a few receivers in close proximity, to the same frequency! As I move individual modular receivers closer to an aggregate of receivers, like tiles in a grid, I can scale my antenna aperture, without detuning every module. It's adaptable!
EM
PS, that students energy harvester probably has a tuned coil for the low frequency fields and he is just coupling magnetically and in close proximity to them. For the wifi and cellular phone frequencies, he uses an antenna.
PS. Ok, it's time for an antenna and radiated fields discussion again!
The time average power flow density flowing through space or anywhere, is given by 1/2 Re(ExH), where E and H are the electric and magnetic field vectors, respectively. The ratio of they magnitude, E/H = 377 ohms in free space. That is, free space has a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms.
Now, an antenna has an effective aperture, which is not necessarily the same as its size and its determined by how well it is tuned. For example, a tuned coil can have an effective aperture 1000's of times larger then its physical size.
To determine how much power can be received, multiply the effective aperture area of the antenna times the average power density of the electromagnetic fields. That's it, very easy and straight forward! (except figuring out your antennas effective aperture LOL)
EM
Probably out of place here, so if anyone feels the urge to post it as a new topic in a more appropriate place, please do so. Anyway, what I found interesting is the mention of recharging the stretchy battery wirelessly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21585817
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. [Definition 1]
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.
An alternative approach to defining OU --
Eoutput/Einput > 1, such that the Law of Conservation of energy is violated. [Definition 2]Actually, this [2] is how some colleagues of mine (scientists) PREFER to
twist my definition of ou (above,[1]) -- but then they mock ou saying that the law of conservation of energy cannot be violated. Such also like to refer to "ou" as "perpetual motion" implying a violation of the laws of thermodynamics [sigh].
Rather, I'm looking for
QuoteA novel energy device -- one for which the delta-energy >1, indicating the presence of a little-known or un-tapped energy source
.
I personally don't believe in "OU". I don't believe that we can break the established laws of physics and tap heretofore unavailable energy.
I believe in unity. One. In higher efficiency. In how we can be less wasteful and make our machines more efficient.
I believe we can utilize back torque to make our electrical generators more efficient. Is that OU?
Quote from: GFT on 2014.07.17, 20:22:49
I personally don't believe in "OU". I don't believe that we can break the established laws of physics and tap heretofore unavailable energy.
I believe in unity. One. In higher efficiency. In how we can be less wasteful and make our machines more efficient.
I believe we can utilize back torque to make our electrical generators more efficient. Is that OU?
Hi GFT,
I think most of us here feel the same way, but I think you are missing the point Physics Professor was making, that what we are looking for is a new unknown and untapped source of energy. In the beginning it would appear to be over unity or perpetual motion but just until we learn what the source of the extra energy really is.
Welcome aboard.