Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

[FunkyJive]

OU is a matter of perspective.

The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".

When you realize that we have tunnel-vision in respect to electricity and magnetism (and pretty much everthing else) and that there is more to it than that which we see and measure, then the possiblilty of converting another form of energy into the form we want is pretty damn possible.

Hi Grumpy

I skipped to the end of this discussion to post my comments and a little above was your own - succinctly and elegantly put.

We clearly share EXACTLY the same lateral perspective 


All the best,

FunkyJive

[allcanadian]

I think Grumpy made a good point

The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".

And regardless of how energy is converted in a given space it contains the same amount of energy ---- But in conversion it will interact differently and have different qualities ie.. it may radiate energy or it may absorb energy in any form from its surroundings. This change in the properties of interaction define the type of interaction and scale of the "system" it may interact with.
I would agree with most all of you, but we have to define exactly what we are talking about and understand the scale of interaction with everthing else.

Shruggedatlas remark seems off-base though

The human body is also an amazing machine, but is similarly under unity.

Enclose a space a billion miles around one person and account for all the energy related to this one person irregardless of the form this energy may take and you would understand there can be only unity---- until some energy exceeds this one billion mile boundary in which case you just define a bigger box.

[FunkyJive]

Hi Allcanadian.

Yes, I agree with Grumpy entirely, as no-doubt yourself - and very refreshing to see total alignment with my own views on this subject.

On the proposal of "Under-Unity", this would certainly violate all CoE laws as you suggest, as the rules clearly state that energy can niether be created or destroyed. I believe Shruggedatlas must have been eluding to inefficiency, although this only relates to actual output against desired output - with all inputs and outputs in total equilibrium nonetheless.


All the best,

FunkyJive

[NerzhDishual]

Hi philosophers,

It is absolutely a question of semantics.  What you call the Aether, I call Stored Potential
Energy In the Universe.

You, of course, can dub it whatever you want...

Potential? So, lets suppose that you bring your young son to a psychologist. The practitioner said: according my IQ testing, your boy has a great intellectual *potential*.
What would you do?  Dismiss the diagnosis and let you son self-educating himself or help him by any mean you can imagine?  The OU researchers are doing the last.

So, if there is "something" *potentially stored* (ie: that could, sometimes and under some
unknown circonstances be activated/taped) instead of just a mere "void" ; "Overunity" (= Cop >1) is possible as this "something" could participate. Could it really not?

An heat pump as a *cop* >3. We know why. Some others devices (I'm thinking about over-efficient electrolysis) have also a cop >1 and it is still unexplained (http://freenrg.info/UTOPIATECH/PROCES_VERBAL_2.pdf). In French sorry, but
worth, IMHO, to be translated.

Best of all and sorry for my English.

[Esotericman]

Ok, it seems as though I'm being misconstrued again as being an opponent of free energy.  Although my definitions may not allow for such things per se, I am certainly a proponent of the cause!  My intent is merely to invite fellow OU researchers to adopt a more scientific approach.  I'll be the first to admit that our current scientific paradigm is somewhat limited and incomplete, but I don't see any use in disregarding it outright!  Build on science, don't tear it down.

In order to define something new, you must understand what is old, and then recognize the differences.