PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-26, 13:25:38
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: What do you consider to be OU.  (Read 44965 times)
Group: Guest
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?
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 805
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
   
Group: Guest
...
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.

« Last Edit: 2013-04-05, 12:34:38 by exnihiloest »
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2379


Buy me a beer
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)

« Last Edit: 2013-02-16, 14:12:56 by Centraflow »


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2379


Buy me a beer


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
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.
« Last Edit: 2013-02-16, 17:19:55 by PhysicsProf »
   
Group: Guest
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

   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2379


Buy me a beer
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)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
@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?
   
Group: Guest
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.

   
Group: Guest
@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.

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.

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
  Lawrence, you are the only one who commented on my definition (so far), and I appreciate your doing so.  

Quote
Quote
Quote 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?
   
Group: Guest
...
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?

   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
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.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
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.


---------------------------
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3005
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.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
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 ?
   
Group: Guest
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.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1419

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)
« Last Edit: 2013-02-18, 17:23:38 by Paul-R »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1997
@Dumped
Quote
Precisely!  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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3005
AllCanadian,

I think you're absolutely correct.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1997
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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1997
@Paul-R
Quote
Energy 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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
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
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-26, 13:25:38