A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

reply to post by hellobruce


This is step one for me researching that.

Googling his website for "symmetry implies nonobservables and asymmetry implies observables," there is the correspondence from 2007 with the subject "virtual vs observable." Link

reply to post by Mary Rose

We pay the power company to use only a "single pass" of the energy flow along its transmission lines and the consumer power circuits, and thereby to just "waste" some 1013 times as much available EM energy as the company allows us to "use".

Is it possible the truth in the above statement from Bearden is "symmetrical" aka nonobservable?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


First, is your question satire?

reply to post by Mary Rose


What is your definition of overunity? Third time now asking you that question. Why do you evade the question?

It's not a real word so at least for use in this thread how are you defining the term?

DenyObfuscation
It's not a real word so at least for use in this thread how are you defining the term?

It's not a real word only because mainstream science is playing a silly game.

An overunity device is simply one that puts out more energy than you had to pay for to run the thing.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Like a solar panel?

Mary Rose
reply to post by hellobruce

 

This is step one for me researching that.

Googling his website for "symmetry implies nonobservables and asymmetry implies observables," there is the correspondence from 2007 with the subject "virtual vs observable." Link

Refer back to this post.

Now, since we are not actually talking about science here but philosophies of science, not actual science because Bearden and Lindemann are not using the scientific method…

Scientific Method (dumbed down version)

The philosophy of science is concerned with all the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science. This discipline sometimes overlaps metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, viz., when it explores whether scientific results comprise a study of truth. In addition to these central problems of science as a whole, many philosophers of science consider problems that apply to particular sciences (e.g. philosophy of biology or philosophy of physics). Some philosophers of science also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy.

Philosophy of science has historically been met with mixed response from the scientific community. Though scientists often contribute to the field, many prominent scientists have felt that the practical effect on their work is limited.

*

(This all boils down to how they "interpret" scientific data)

We can, ourselves, be philosophers using their principles.

Oh boy here comes the fun part!

In this post I deduced that, under Bearden's presumption that all energy we use, is not actually heat energy (and that heat energy doesn't exist because it comes from the vacuum-zero point, "dipole" etc.), and chemical-electrical energy is the same…

That in fact, since we we have electrochemical processes in the human body, *, that we in fact, are by your definition, either free energy machines, zero point energy beings, or perhaps…

Wait..

Am I an overunity device?



In conclusion I will quote Bearden again:

This is one of the great ironies in the history of science: All the hydrocarbons ever burned, all the steam turbines that ever turned the shaft of a generator, all the rivers ever dammed, all the nuclear fuel rods ever consumed, all the windmills and waterwheels, all the solar cells, and all the chemistry in all the batteries ever produced, have not directly delivered a single watt into the external circuit's load. All that incredible fuel consumption and energy extracted from the environment has only been used to continually restore the source dipole that our own closed current loop circuits are deliberately designed to destroy faster than we restore them.

Most electrodynamicists hold the opinion that extracting usable electrical energy from the vacuum is extraordinarily difficult. In fact it is a very simple thing to do and has always been done by our power systems anyway.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


To be honest, I don't know anything about solar panels.

So far the only device I know about is the heat pump in a temperate climate.

A search for “overunity” in Wikipedia redirects to “Perpetual motion.”

The Free Dictionary also redirects to “perpetual motion.”

But obviously a google search will bring up pages and pages.

It is not normal that the word would not appear in the dictionary, with a section for the physics meaning, where the stance by mainstream science that it doesn’t exist would be noted.

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

To be honest, I don't know anything about solar panels.

So far the only device I know about is the heat pump in a temperate climate.

Why not a subtropical climate. Overunity only happens in certain regions? Is "vacuum dipole energy" stronger in those regions?

Mary Rose
A search for “overunity” in Wikipedia redirects to “Perpetual motion.”

The Free Dictionary also redirects to “perpetual motion.”

But obviously a google search will bring up pages and pages.

It is not normal that the word would not appear in the dictionary, with a section for the physics meaning, where the stance by mainstream science that it doesn’t exist would be noted.

The word sizzurp is used by rappers, it doesn't mean there needs to be a definition for it in the dictionary. It also doesn't mean it has any health benefit simply because they used cough syrup to make it.

reply to post by Mary Rose

To be honest, I don't know anything about solar panels.

For starters, they're infinite overunity according to your definition for this thread.

An overunity device is simply one that puts out more energy than you had to pay for to run the thing.

You pay nothing to run the thing.

The point is not about solar panels per se but rather the ramifications of your definition. It opens the door for a "Gravity Assisted Sisyphus Drive" (slave labor would do) to be "overunity".

I don't think you want that.

Mary you kind of remind me of the Iraq War. An entire country went to war on false beliefs. Simple lies told to promote something.*,*

Basically, someone lied to you, and rather than looking at that, reflecting on it, we are years into a disturbing debacle where you just refuse to accept anything contrary to the initial lie told.

Yes, over unity is a word fabricated by people who refuse to calculate efficiency the normal way. It does not mean anything has changed physically. It does not mean the intelligence was good on Iraq.

It just means that as a colloquial expression, it represents something we fundamentally understand, and this alternative version is confusing to people who are attracted to it.

In reality, we know quite well that perpetual motion machines are tried, tested and completely junk science. In light of this, someone created "Over unity" to describe the same thing. But yes they claim it's not a PMM, it's "Over unity!"

And then staple that to coefficient of performance. (A scientific principle that doesn't need an alternative definition).

In essence, you still believe there is yellow cake and anthrax hiding somewhere in Saddam's golden toilets.

DenyObfuscation
It opens the door for a "Gravity Assisted Sisyphus Drive" (slave labor would do) to be "overunity".

What do you mean?

reply to post by Mary Rose

In Greek mythology Sisyphus (/ˈsɪsɪfəs/;[1] Greek: Σίσυφος, Sísyphos) was a king of Ephyra (now known as Corinth) punished for chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to repeat this action forever.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by boncho


Your comparison is not apt.

The global demand for energy is a vital public affairs issue that we've known about for years and the research associated with addressing this issue is directly related to the term "overunity."

The fact that Wikipedia refuses to have a page on the term speaks volumes.

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho

 

Your comparison is not apt.

The global demand for energy is a vital public affairs issue that we've known about for years and the research associated with addressing this issue is directly related to the term "overunity."

The fact that Wikipedia refuses to have a page on the term speaks volumes.

Wiki is an open free for all that lets just about anyone submit page information. You can read the discussions on the building of the page.

The best plausible definition (as a usable word[but not with scientific value]) I could find that doesn't relate to PPM, is this. But it still has no scientific basis.

Basically the author states that any machine that produces energy without physically putting in work, is "over unity" because COP can't be calculated that way.

He lists a water wheel as an example.

But here is the problem. COP isn't used for water wheels. In which case, you would calculate the work by the water and gravity. Then you can record the work produced by the water wheel, and you can calculate efficiency. Heck, you can set your arbitrary line even further and calculate how much energy it took to evaporate that water before it was ready to come down via gravity.

This, is not a scientific definition.

New scientific terms come via the scientific method. Experimentation and reproducibility. If I say, create a process, or a method of determining something in our environment (a unit of X), of which we had no idea previously existed, and it is confirmed by experimentation and reproducibility, then it will become a scientific term.

Think of a Tesla Unit.

List of units named after their inventors.

Any example of "over unity" can already be defined by known scientific terminology, so there is no reason to give any validity to the term. Anyone disseminating the term, has not shown any data worthy of giving it legitimacy.

It stands as either marketing mumbo jumbo, (with people trying to sell something based off that term[either tangible or intangible -see an idea, philosophy-]) or as a non-specific definition for something that is already defined.

It's really no different than a thousand people start saying +Plus Energy. "Oh I invented a machine with +Plus Energy"

Are you going to argue that Plus Energy is a legitimate term simply because a few people say so? Let me remind you that legitimate terms have a basis in science. Science being the thing you say is "suppressing" the term.

"Over Unity" if anything is a philosophical/marketing term, as it has no basis in Science. So if you want to claim suppression, show us an example of philosophers/marketers suppressing it.

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho

 

Your comparison is not apt.

The global demand for energy is a vital public affairs issue that we've known about for years and the research associated with addressing this issue is directly related to the term "overunity."

There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of research associated with addressing "this issue" and none contain the term "over unity". Check the DOE database if it is still around.

If a bunch of cranks started saying "Caninal fauna electro-blastocyst solar arrays" and claimed they had some oddly genetically engineered material which came from dogs and could harness the sun's energy via grafting some organic living gunk to your house… (without evidence), would you then say researching alternative energy ideas must contain the words: Caninal Fauna?

reply to post by boncho


"Cranks" are associated with "Overunity Generator - Generate Free Electricity In Your Own Home"?

The Origin Of The Word "Overunity"

Overunity is a mathematical term. The number "1" is considered unity so anything over this value is considered overunity. Here, we use a number to denote the ratio of power out to power in.

If the device is capable of generating more power than is put into the system (not all such generators require a power input but some do) then it is an overunity device and effectively it amplifies the electricity input.

Most standard generators are the opposite. They are "underunity" due to energy losses that take place during the conversion process.

Mary Rose

"Cranks" are associated with "Overunity Generator - Generate Free Electricity In Your Own Home"?

Yes, cranks. You could prove me wrong though.

The investment cost of parts, materials, tools and a good set of instructional plans (strongly recommended if you don't want to waste time) will set you back between 50 and 100 dollars. But they will allow you to get up and running in a matter of days so you will break even within a matter of perhaps 2 to 4 weeks. Everything after that is gravy!