What is over unity?

[spinn_MP]

...
I once began a topic here on this very subject a few years ago and you would not believe the arguments and lack of any agreement on what these terms mean.  I was very disappointed because if we are searching for OU and free energy, if we don't know what it is, or at least can't agree on what it is, how will we know when we find it?  Who will agree that it is truly OU?

So, what was so wrong with at least some answers in that topic of yours, which you cannot agree with? Both synonims were defined a long, long time ago...

To make it short:

"Free Energy": ... any kind of energy you can use it without any (obvious) costs... (any conventional and even unconventional energy source, you can get it "to work for you", for free...)

"Over Unity": simple, any isolated system, which outputs more energy, than it's combined input's of energy are....

Needless to say, we still haven't observed any kind of OU so far... Funny, eh?
Who knows, maybe those silly old physical laws are still valid...  LOL....

[conradelektro]

To make it short:
"Over Unity": simple, any isolated system, which outputs more energy, than it's combined input's of energy are.

My argument:  The system is not isolated. An unknown form of energy is tapped. The "combined input" should not only list the "known energies" but also the "unknown energy" tapped.

So, by bringing the "unknown energy source" into the argument one can abandon the unfortunate "over unity".

Many inventors of "over unity machines" already refer to an "unknown energy". In fact, I have not read about any "over unity machine" where the inventor has not waffled about an unknown energy source which he uses. So, the term "over unity" does not apply anyway once the "unknown energy" is brought into the argument.

Just give up the "isolated system" term and you are free from "violation of widely accepted physical laws".

Of course, the "unknown energy" is a hard to sell, but at least one is not in the hot water of violating "energy conservation".

Greetings, Conrad

[spinn_MP]

My argument:  The system is not isolated. An unknown form of energy is tapped. The combined input only considers "known energies".

That doesn't change the thing a bit... We're observing the limited region. The input of a conventional, isolated system can handle even non-recognised energy sources... The point is, there's an additional INPUT source, even if it's currently non-identifed.

So, by bringing the "unknown energy source" into the argument one can abandon the unfortunate "over unity".

Many inventors of "over unity machines" already refer to an "unknown energy". In fact, I have not read about any "over unity machine" where the inventor has not waffled about an unknown energy source which he uses. So, the term "over unity" does not apply anyway once the "unknown energy" is brought into the argument.

Just give up the "closed system" term and you are free from "violation of widely accepted physical laws".

Of course, the "unknown energy" is a hard to sell, but at least one is not in the hot water of violating "energy conservation".

Greetings, Conrad

Dear Conrad, it's actually very simple to analyze any kind of a physical system with even unknown inputs...

As you may be aware, such a system (with undefined (additional) energy source) would easily be producing more energy out that "what would be put in conventional way into it"" .
It would be easy to construct different "self-sustained", "perpetual-motion" devices.

So, where are those devices?

[conradelektro]

I do not claim that "those devices" exist (alleged "over unity devices " probably do not work and "mysterious new energy sources" probably do not exist).

My argument:

If I wanted to "sell" a "over unity device" I would very much avoid the term "over unity". I would explain it by help of a "new energy source" which is converted into a electricity or torque.

(Of course I have no "over unity device" and I have not found a "new free energy source".)

I just want to say that "over unity" is a bad choice of words and that one can avoid the term "over unity" by bringing the term "new free energy" into play.

There are at least two examples in history for "new energy": electricity and atomic power, both were not consistently known 400 years ago. So, one can hope to find more "energies". But there are no credible examples for "over unity". So, I would go for a "new energy" and I would argue with "new energy" carefully avoiding to ever be caught saying "over unity".

It is just about which "words" should be used. It is not important, I have nothing to contribute technically. I just think that the term "over unity" causes confusion and hard feelings and that one should instead say "use of a new energy" or if you want "use of a new free energy".

Greetings, Conrad

[conradelektro]

What is free energy?

"FREE ENERGY" is "ENERGY" which everybody is allowed to use without having to pay for it. And a second important feature is that this "ENERGY" is there in abundance.

For example solar energy (heat and all other "rays" from the sun hitting the surface of the earth):

So far it is free and as long as the sun works it is there in abundance. But I can imagine a political system that charges you money for its use. Nowadays you only have to buy the "Solar Device" (some sort of panel or heat trap) but in the future the fiscal authorities might levy a tax for every Kilowatt generated. So, solar energy is "still free" because it is futile to worry about the "end of the sun" (which also would be the end of the earth).

Energy in the wind and in the tides:

Because you need a lot of real estate on land or under water to install the "devices" (like windmills) it is hardly free. And if you want to install a windmill in your garden, in most building zones this is forbidden. So, this is not free energy for practical reasons.

Wood (the trees on this world):

In a world with not too many people wood could be "free energy" as long as more tress grow by themselves as are cut down to be burned.

Oil:

As long as we do not find oil on other planets and as long as there is no proof that oil is renewed automatically by some unknown mechanism in the earth, oil is not "free energy" because it will be used up some day.

Atomic energy:

Since it depends on rare materials (e.g. Uranium) it is not free. If we can find a new mechanism like "cold fusion", it could be free (but I fear that also for "cold fusion" one needs rare materials which will be hard to get).

My definition of free energy:

A source of energy which everybody is allowed to use for free and which is there in abundance.

Or a new way of converting a known energy source which is free and there in abundance (like the sun) in a very efficient way.

My argument again:

Like "over unity" the term "free energy" is used in a confusing and inconsistent way.

If I wanted to sell a wounder machine I would argue like this (but rest assured, I have no wounder machine):

There is this new machine which converts this known abundant energy source (e.g. the rays from the sun)  in a new very efficient way into electricity (like a photo voltaic panel), please buy it because I want to become rich.

In case of a "new energy source" I would try to explain the "new energy source" as profoundly as possible, hopefully with measurements and experiments that show the existence of this new energy source clearly.

So, my argument in a short:

In case you want recognition never use the terms "over unity" or "free energy".

Good terms:

"efficient conversion of a known energy into an other known energy" , "use of a new energy source by converting the newly discovered energy into a known form of energy" and so on, you get my drift.

Greetings, Conrad