Overunity (what is it?)

[Farmhand]

Here's my view on O.U. it is short for over unity. THere seems to be an assertion by some that O.U.breaks the laws of thermodynamics.

1) The definition could be seen by some as being more energy out than is consumed in total.

2) Or it could mean more energy out than we put in.

Only the first case would violate any laws of whatever. The second case would not, a solar panel is included in the second case as is hydro and wind input, we don't blow the wind.

Now if we think of it as more out than we put in it is likely the case that some input is from out side the so called "closed system", meaning it is not really a "closed system".

Now also if we consider that in mostly all systems except the entire Universe, the dissipated energy leaves the system, so any system where the dissipated energy leaves the system is an "open system" and therefore not really subject to breaking the 2nd law or whatever, said same system could be also collecting energy from the environment in a similar way to the way the energy is released or another way,either by accident or a device built to do it. Case 2 is nothing special, Case 1 is the Law breaker.

I see only two possible definitions to choose from, i think we should vote on it in a poll, at least so we can see the viewpoints of the majority of posters.

1) The definition of O.U. is "More energy out than is consumed in total".

2) The definition of O.U. is "More energy out than we put in".

Even if we could say which meaning we are speaking of in any situation would help.

Cheers

[profitis]

@farmhand the definition of overunity is more work out than we put in without the need for a fuel-consuming temperature gradient,for the net gain.your 1st definition smashes the 1st law thermodynamics,unlikely to ever happen in a normal laboratory.your 2nd definition covers the 2nd law of thermodynamics(if by 'we' you mean humans) but doesnt exclude natural resources.

[Farmhand]

@farmhand the definition of overunity is more work out than we put in without the need for a fuel-consuming temperature gradient,for the net gain.your 1st definition smashes the 1st law thermodynamics,unlikely to ever happen in a normal laboratory.your 2nd definition covers the 2nd law of thermodynamics(if by 'we' you mean humans) but doesnt exclude natural resources.

Yes ok then if we consider that definition it means solar panels, wind and hydro turbines are all Over Unity. Do you agree ? As are some other regular things which produce an output without us providing some or any of the input.

No matter what the mechanism, in that definition if more energy is output then we input we have Over Unity. Also any excess energy from an unknown source is just that an unknown source, and until we determine that the unknown source is not man made in origin we cannot claim Over Unity. eg. Radio waves or ground disturbances ect.

If we consider man made radio waves as a source of energy not provided by us personally then do we also consider power taken from the grid without paying for it as energy not provided by us and legitimate Over Unity ? I say no, any energy that comes from a man made source should be excluded as they may not be available for ever.

Cheers

I still say we should have a Poll so we can see what the opinion of the majority of posters is. Many people claim they break the Laws of thermodynamics, Lenz's Law and even Ohms Law when they obviously do not. eg. Cold electricity would break Ohms law, if there was such a thing.

..

[vasik041]

Perhaps somebody find this book interesting

Free Energy Principles
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msza1mkalq06uw0/fe_principles.pdf

[Farmhand]

Perhaps somebody find this book interesting

Free Energy Principles
https://www.dropbox.com/s/msza1mkalq06uw0/fe_principles.pdf

Free energy is different to the definition of Over Unity. It also depends what you mean by "Free" exactly. I'll give an example.

Take a small community near a river, if we want to build a small hydro station for the community, even if we get all the materials for "free", let's say 'donated', then we still need to build and maintain and run the facility. And if everyone just does their bit with no money involved, it could be considered by some as totally "free" energy.

However if you consider free as in "cost" then all "Costs" as in to the environment, for materials gathering, maintenance and day to day running, possible continuing effect to others down stream or up ect. need be considered.

By the way some people just say "Tesla never claimed Over Unity from the many non Over Unity systems people claim he did for those systems" based mainly on power figures, such as with the "Magnifying Transmitter" people claim it was a free energy device but he clearly states it operates at less than 100% efficiency under Oath and has generators to feed it power and energy. Nothing sad about that at all, what is sad is people continually claiming almost everything Tesla did was Over Unity. He did have energy collectors and idea's for obtaining energy from the Niagara Falls for many years before it happened.

There should be no mistake the energy being tapped by a hydro plant is free, but it costs human effort to collect and distribute it.

Cheers