Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[gravityblock]

When you realize your wrong and you have made mistakes the adult thing to do is to admit it and apologize.  Not make a joke of your mistakes and ignore the consequences.

It appears MarkE has a bad habit of wrongly assuming due to his/her own pre-conceived ideas which are based on false-hoods.  He/She likes to condemn before investigating.  Some wish to remain willfully ignorant, so I wouldn't take it personally.

Gravock

[MarkE]

Robert is mistaking about fossils fuel COP > 1 because we pay for.

No he is correct.  The amount of energy that we supply from well to wheel is less than the petrol fuel supplies.  The COP is therefore greater than 1.

At the extreme viewpoint we would be allow to say that the person who would have petrol oil spontaneously from ground in his garden he/she would have free energy while using a fuel turbine able to convert this oil in electric or heat power for his/her house, through a generator; but of course it would be not necessarily clean energy.

My yard, your yard, some oil field in Nigeria, it doesn't matter where the oil starts.  What matters is how much energy we get out versus how much we supply

In the same vane we shall say that a wood heater for the one live in a forest, not considering the cost of one's time, is a "free energy device".

Slow down there, this is the whole point:  COP > 1 does not mean over unity.

COP are only related to a ratio between USEFULL ENERGY under COSTLY ENERGY; any other idea comes from non-professional of the domain who have never practiced nor studied the domain and have spread misconceptions about and much confusion. Even Ph. D. often make the same mistake but an engineer in an energetic engineering office should not.

Here in the USA, colleges teach COP means:  Heat moved divided by the useful energy consumed to move it.

Otherwise, I am fully agree with the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY viewpoint.

[Farmhand]

Mr. Murray-Smith restated much of what was in my post.  He states as I have that the COP for things such as petrol fuel, solar energy, wind, etc is far greater than 1.  When one looks at things that way it brings about a couple of implications.  The one that I pointed out is that using COP > 1 as a criteria for a new and better energy source is very dubious since the energy sources that we would like to improve upon already have such a COP. 

In the search for an energy source that would be considered over unity in the way that most people use the term, efficiency should be the guide. When and if the apparent efficiency takes that elusive jump from just under 100% to an indefinite value, then we've hit the OU jackpot.  If someone were to later determine that we actually have an input energy source to the machine, such as hypothetically ZPE, and one could find a way to measure the input then the apparent efficiency value would fall below 100%.

Looking at the bolded parts of the second paragraph. (my bold)

But wouldn't it then be the case that the device was never OU ?

And also that OU is never a permanent situation, and is only a quasi state until the extra input is identified and quantified ( which I have already stated as another way of looking at it ) which means OU is not applicable to describe any actual permanent situation or state as we all know something can not come from nothing so all of the output is at some point part of the input always.

I'm ok with whatever definition but we should all know what each other means when they claim OU or discuss it. For me OU means more output energy then is input by us no matter if the extra energy source is known or not. This gives OU a legitimate meaning. Not just a transient quasi meaning.

Poynt99 has a document on it on the overunity.com site.

If C.O.P. over 1.0 is not OU and if we accept that something cannot come from nothing then what exactly is the actual real lasting meaning for OU ? Not just the definition that only lasts while we are ignorant of the actual extra input, then when we identify and quantify the source of the extra input it is no longer that OU. It's more or less saying that OU is a statement of ignorance , which I am ok with as well as long as I know what people mean by the term OU.

People can give whatever meaning they want for terms but if they want others to understand them they need to define the contentious terms.

If we didn't get more out of fossil fuels than what we put in then we would be mad to do it.

Picking up a piece of wood and burning it for heat is OU, depending on how much energy you expend doing it. Same as picking and eating a banana.

Cheers

[MarkE]

Looking at the bolded parts of the second paragraph. (my bold)

But wouldn't it then be the case that the device was never OU ?

If a device is OU, it must have an efficiency of over 100%.  Any efficiency over 100% is undefined as net output is possible with no input, the exact thing that we want from OU.  Mr. Murray-Smith's point is that it doesn't matter whether or not some yet to be discovered energy source is OU or a previously unidentified energy source.  If the source has the properties of inexhaustibility, and very low, ideally zero, operating cost then that energy source has the properties that we want from something that is OU.

And also that OU is never a permanent situation, and is only a quasi state until the extra input is identified and quantified ( which I have already stated as another way of looking at it ) which means OU is not applicable to describe any actual permanent situation or state as we all know something can not come from nothing so all of the output is at some point part of the input always.

That is a reasonable enough assumption.  It leads to more or less two paths that I can see:  Either declare that searching for OU is a futile endeavor, or simply allowing that whatever is ultimately determined, OU is a convenient term to describe the properties of the kind of desirable new energy source that we would like to find.

I'm ok with whatever definition but we should all know what each other means when they claim OU or discuss it. For me OU means more output energy then is input by us no matter if the extra energy source is known or not. This gives OU a legitimate meaning. Not just a transient quasi meaning.

Unfortunately, it removes the distinction between what we want:  plentiful, cheap, clean new energy source(s) and things we would rather get past such as fossil fuels.  Personally, I do not object to the idea that if anything ever appears OU that it ultimately will almost certainly to be proven otherwise.

Poynt99 has a document on it on the overunity.com site.

Do you mean some other overunity site than this one?

If C.O.P. over 1.0 is not OU and if we accept that something cannot come from nothing then what exactly is the actual real lasting meaning for OU ? Not just the definition that only lasts while we are ignorant of the actual extra input, then when we identify and quantify the source of the extra input it is no longer that OU. It's more or less saying that OU is a statement of ignorance , which I am ok with as well as long as I know what people mean by the term OU.

I think that there are many people who would disagree with us about the transient nature of anything that might appear OU staying that way.  One could qualify the term and say "apparent OU".  I do not think that is necessary and I don't think it adds much in the way of clarity.  It could inspire flame wars between camps who think that the First Law is violable and those who don't.  If a rich relative pays all my bills, then from my point of view everything in the world is free.

People can give whatever meaning they want for terms but if they want others to understand them they need to define the contentious terms.

COP and efficiency are both well defined.  "Free energy" has many interpretations.  In my experience:  OU is commonly understood to mean an energy source that appears to produce more than it consumes.  Some might object to the "appears" qualifier.  I don't see any value in quibbling about that until such a day as something that seems like a working OU machine appears on the scene.

If we didn't get more out of fossil fuels than what we put in then we would be mad to do it.

Mostly, yes, but there are exceptions.  Consider something like rocket fuel.  We put a lot more energy into making the rocket fuel then we get out of it.  The form of the fuel, its energy density, power density, etc matter more than the efficiency.

Picking up a piece of wood and burning it for heat is OU, depending on how much energy you expend doing it. Same as picking and eating a banana.

I think you will find common agreement that each has a COP > 1.  I think that only a small minority would call either is OU.

Cheers

[centraflow]

"I must say that I like the hydralic motor idea of driving the generator, this in itself is an energy saver (huge torque for little input)." that is incorrect; hydraulics don't save energy. Agood electric motor can get >95% efficiency, better than a hydraulic system.

You did not read what I said (huge torque for little input) I never mentioned efficiency, you did, and yes you can get electric motors up to 95%, but for the same torque NO, they will draw huge currents in a "direct drive", hydralics are the best variable torque direct drive that you can get.


regards


Mike