The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[nightlife]

loop888, thinking needs to involve common sense. You can not have over unity if you do not know what energy is. You can think you have over unity but the energy you are claiming to be over unity has to come from some where. You can not get something from nothing.
If you build a motor that puts out more then what it uses, then the motor must be collecting the excess energy from somewhere other then what it is supplied with.

Everyone wants to build something that they consider to be over unity but they don?t want to start with the basics and that is finding out what energy really even is. How can you claim over unity of something that you know nothing about?

I want to produce energy so I have to first answer these 3 following questions:

1, What is energy?
2, Where does energy come from?
3, How do we produce energy?

I have answered all three in my mind and I have found that because of my answer to the first question, over unity is impossible to achieve. This is because I find true energy to be vibrations and or pulses. This may or may not be true but that is where I am at right now.

""electricity" is way off the matter."

Electricity is not way off the matter, it is what most are trying to produce as well as what most are claiming over unity of. They do this without even knowing what electricity even is.

"overunity (>1) as i catch it refers to obtain: 1 from 0 = 2 from 1 = gain"

You would be assuming over unity based on that assumption but with out knowing what is used, there is no way to know that you in fact have created over unity.
You may say that you know electricity is being used but if you don?t know what electricity is, then you don?t really know what is being used.

So again I must state that we can not claim over unity of something we know nothing about. I believe we need to focus on what energy may be so that we can focus on the collection of it. Common sense tells us that we can not make something out of nothing and just because we cant see it, doesn?t mean it?s not there.

[argona369]

I Think it has to do with your point of view.
Language will be improvised to describe it. (sometimes incorrectly as well)
I?ve had to do that on my ?Tesla coil electrostatic? thread, probably with mistakes.

Take for example the ?Tesla Coil?
This gives you the impression of a transformer (vague) due to it?s ?coil? nature.
But look at the same device from the electron view.
It now looks like an ?Electron pump?. (less vague)
Or further still from the magnetic field view,
A Monopolar Electron pump?, primary surrounding secondary.(even more "less vague")
Is that the ?best description? ? probably not.

And interesting as well,
The Tesla ?Magnifying Transmitter?, implies "more".
If it were outputting more, you?d think he would have used
"Amplifying Transmitter?

Cliff,

You are describing a long standing debate among linguists - which comes first, thought or word?  From one standpoint, until someone first has a particular thought or observation, there can exist no word for it, so the thought must come first.  But from another standpoint, without words to describe certain concepts, a person will never have that thought.  This latter theory reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the government seeks to eliminate politically undesireable words from the language in order to make "thoughtcrime" not merely illegal, but in fact impossible.

I think the truth lies somewhere in between.  It takes one exceptional person to come up with a word to describe a new concept, and then the word is taught to others, who, without that word, would have never arrived at that thought on their own.

[loop888]

@nightlife,

well, first i think electricty is way off the matter because the overunity concept is older than electricity. first people trying overunity where looking for work. today's people looking for overunity to produce electricy, in most? cases, are looking for work TO produce electricity, like their attach their overunity machine to a generator, right? so produce electricity would be the aplication to something wich came first, the overunity device.

"You would be assuming over unity based on that assumption but with out knowing what is used"

let's suppose i want to make a gravity powered overunity device. well, maybe i dont know precisely what gravity is but for sure i got the simple concept: "small mass is attracted to the big one". so therefore im located at earth, the big mass, i can be sure anything smaller released away from the earth will be attracted to it. did i understand what im using there?

ok, in that gravity example i would not creating something from nothing, because gravity is already there, therefore the machine would be creating something from something, so you would be right if you state a gravity powered device is not overunity.
now, before we get there, the problem is we dont know how to pull away the small mass from the big one with less power than the produced on the attraction step.
so, if i made it i could dare to claim overunity, real or not that overunity i would be claiming would be "my" concept, and we both would be right, just because if we relate to the problem "push away the small mass with less power than the produced on the attraction step" the machine still would be producing something from "nothing".

saludos!

[nightlife]

loop888, we cant say that the over unity concept is older then electricity because as long as we have had friction, we have had electricity.

You may be right if you are talking about the human concept of electricity.

Based on your use of gravity and the concept of producing work using it, it still can not be considered as over unity because you would have to know what the gravity's work is to say that you are producing more then gravity produces. Your concept is nothing more then the manipulation of gravity. You would not be creating something from nothing because you are creating something from using the energy of gravity.
Some may consider it as nothing because it cost us nothing but the fact remains that gravity it's self is something. The work being done by the use of gravity may be considered over unity but who is to say that we are not taking away energy from gravity to produce the work? The only way we could say that it doesn't take away energy from gravity is by having a exact measurement of gravity's energy both before and after the work is done. Then again we would have to know what energy really is to know what is being used.

[loop888]

@nightlife,

you are right, "concept" is a human concept.

yes, manipulation of gravity would not create something from nothing, it would be something from something, that wat ive sat. still, if gravity is considered "one way" force and turns out that i manage to trick it into a "two way" force then i would create something from "aparently nothing".

about taking energy from gravity, well, observation tell me no matter how much time have passed by since the first thing got away from the object (in ex, earth) that was attracting it with gravity force and how much other things breaked that same gravity force again and again from that first moment to now, our weight remains the same.
so i would fearless state gravity is a pretty "renewable" resource.

of course if someone invent a gravity OU manipulation device and after some time we start to float around... well, then i gonna recognize i was wrong.