A Heat Pump Is an Overunity Device?

reply to post by Mary Rose

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

Yes, most definitely, because there are a number of problems with this explanation.

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

Magnets need to be charged. "Confounded magnets, how do thy work!"

In any case, all the energy is calculable. And there is no free lunch there. See: the aptly named, "Simple Magnetic Overunity Toy" or SMOT. Of course, this toy does not do anything special. But it goes against your "over unity is banned on wiki" idea.

Link

These devices can never be sources of energy for an additional reason. In calculating the energy budget for the device, one must consider the energy required to produce the permanent magnets. That is, the device must not only produce energy, but must produce enough energy to make up for the energy consumed in creating the magnets that make it run. One cannot get more energy out of a magnetic-based engine than the energy that was required to produce the magnets in the first place.

The difference with this generator is in how it obtains mechanical motion from the magnets. This is thanks to a little known area of physics known as "zero point". It was actually studied extensively by the likes of Albert Einstein and especially Nikola Tesla, the "grandfather of electricity".

Where in good god's name does Einstein mention magnets in regards to zero point energy? If Einstein admitted that energy mechanical motion came from magnets, to the point it could violate the 2nd Law, the rest of his work would be in major conflict.

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.

Okay a couple things here.

1. Over unity I have actually seen in statistical economics before. Usually referring to bad equations stating that the calculations were wrong. e.g. over unity, "over 100%"

2. Power in and power out is relative. You can have 100 watts in and 300 watts out*, a correct evaluation of a system is done with energy in/energy out.

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.

Is he talking about energy or power?

galileo.phys.virginia.edu...

How To Get An Overunity Generator

Commercial devices are still around five years away but if you want to quit paying your power bills now then there is no reason why you cannot construct a small-scale domestic device yourself. They are even more simple to build than a home-made wind turbine.

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!

Where are all the people using these?

reply to post by boncho


Whatever.

"Overunity" is a word in the English language and normally they get defined in the dictionary.

Mary Rose
reply to post by boncho

 

Whatever.

"Overunity" is a word in the English language and normally they get defined in the dictionary.

Please show me a definition for sizzurp in Oxford's. Thanks.

Trade names are not listed in dictionaries by the way:

rade name
n.
1. A name used to identify a commercial product or service, which may or may not be registered as a trademark. Also called brand name.
2. The name by which a commodity, service, or process is known to the trade.
3. The name under which a business firm operates.

I should know, none of my trademarks are in there!

www.thefreedictionary.com...

On why words make it into the dictionary you can read this:

Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms–in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage.

Of course some words get listed as slang, and others have cited use.

The marked passages are then input into a computer system and stored both in machine-readable form and on 3" x 5" slips of paper to create citations.
Each citation has the following elements:
the word itself
an example of the word used in context
bibliographic information about the source from which the word and example were taken

Cited use would have to be coherent to be given a proper definition. Since you can't source any scientific material, and only have various uses (offering varying by each individual), I see absolutely no reason why it would be considered for definition.

www.merriam-webster.com...

If it were any different than this, I could create a few blogs, websites, run the speaking circuit while selling or giving away DVDs pomading, Natucarcin, the wonderful new drug that eliminates cancer! …and, with just a bit of use in the fringe market it could be a new word, no proof on its efficacy.

Mary Rose
As far as I'm concerned, a heat pump in a temperate climate, an "energy superstar," is an overunity device, the asinine reasoning behind "overunity doesn't exist" notwithstanding.

So you say it's overunity then you post this definition:

Mary Rose
"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.

Which says it's overunity when the ratio of power out to power in is over 1. You also posted this picture showing 3kW power in and 3kW power out:

Mary Rose

That ratio is 3kW/3kW=1, so it's not over 1, so did you just debunk your own claim Mary?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


No.

The 2kW is not power in energy paid for by the consumer.

You're messing with me, aren't you? Are you having fun?

reply to post by Mary Rose

I'm serious. It says: "Here, we use a number to denote the ratio of power out to power in".

You're the one twisting and distorting that to mean something other than exactly what it says. The 2kW is power in just as much as the 1kW is. It may not be electrical power, but it's still power in another form.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Not interested.

I'm not going to evaluate that website.

I've learned what I set out to learn when I started the thread.

I'm moving on.

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Not interested.

I'm not going to evaluate that website.

I've learned what I set out to learn when I started the thread.

I'm moving on.

I'm confused, you posted that website, but you won't evaluate it? And what did you learn, that as long as you ignore everybody in the room you are right?

Sidenote: I don't feel like any of us were very rude to you overall in this thread. We all made an effort to answer your convoluted questions. But it just seems you don't care squat what anyone has to say. While you are claiming "over unity" is being suppressed, and throwing up your proverbial arms about it not being in the dictionary, you are completely disregarding hundreds of words and principals that already made it to the dictionary on their own merit.

Over Unity - a quasi defined term which has a dozen different meanings apparently, has not earned the same status. Which doesn't mean it's being "suppressed" rather than it is simply confusion. It's like saying why isn't Ternablenackle in the dictionary? What the hell is ternablenackle.

In fact, I don't believe you have properly defined 'over unity' as a cogent expression once in this thread. Apparently it means, mainstream science is garbage. Where is your definition?

boncho

Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Not interested.

I'm not going to evaluate that website.

I've learned what I set out to learn when I started the thread.

I'm moving on.

I'm confused, you posted that website, but you won't evaluate it? And what did you learn, that as long as you ignore everybody in the room you are right?

Sidenote: I don't feel like any of us were very rude to you overall in this thread. We all made an effort to answer your convoluted questions. But it just seems you don't care squat what anyone has to say. While you are claiming "over unity" is being suppressed, and throwing up your proverbial arms about it not being in the dictionary, you are completely disregarding hundreds of words and principals that already made it to the dictionary on their own merit.

Over Unity - a quasi defined term which has a dozen different meanings apparently, has not earned the same status. Which doesn't mean it's being "suppressed" rather than it is simply confusion. It's like saying why isn't Ternablenackle in the dictionary? What the hell is ternablenackle.

In fact, I don't believe you have properly defined 'over unity' as a cogent expression once in this thread. Apparently it means, mainstream science is garbage. Where is your definition?

edit on 27-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

Thats because unity is a math term and you cant be over unity since the term unity in math means 1. So if something is at unity it is equal by definition. The term over unity was created so people wouldnt realize they were discussing perpetual motion machines. Because as everyone knows thats been attempted for hundreds of years with no success. And most people understand that perpetual motion machines do not work so the term over unity was born. As far as her being stubborn its her trade mark ran across it in other threads however she will come around to your point of view just takes lots of questions. Ive explained alot of physics to her shes a very bright person thats why i was letting her now she is being misled. But if you try to tell her something without showing her look out.

Good nite all

dragonridr
Because as everyone knows thats been attempted for hundreds of years with no success. And most people understand that perpetual motion machines do not work so the term over unity was born.

That rings a bell. I posted about it on the "The Atmos Clock: Perpertual Motion Machine" thread:

Mary Rose
Lindemann said that Helmholtz’s 1847 “Treatise on the Conservation of Energy” begins with the hypothesis that, since no one had ever built a perpetual motion machine that worked, then it must be impossible. If it was impossible, there had to be a reason: There was some natural law preventing their construction. He said the only thing it could be is the conservation of energy.

Lindemann said that initially the premise was considered so speculative, that it was denied publication, but that shortly thereafter, it was considered brilliant, and brought in a new scientific paradigm.

Obviously, to say something hasn’t been done so it can’t be done isn’t scientific.

reply to post by Mary Rose

First, as Richard Feynman once said, it IS scientific to talk about what is more likely and less likely even in the absence of proof, when you have lots of evidence, so we can say at this point it seems scientifically very unlikely such a device can ever be demonstrated, and it IS scientific to say that thousands of experiments and inventions have been tried and all have failed to demonstrate perpetual motion, or overunity. While it's not scientific to say this implies it's impossible, we can't dismiss the very strong evidence of all the failed experiments.

But more importantly and even more scientific is the other fact your source cited but then glossed over, which is that the law of the conservation of energy has lots of experiments to support it as a scientific law.

To say such a device would contradict the law of conservation of energy is very scientific.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The fact is, the mainstream, official story on the history of perpetual motion machines is challenged by the thoroughly researched book Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved? An Investigation Into the Legend of Bessler's Wheel by John Collins, according to Lindemann. Hundreds of documents from the early 1700s translated from German and Latin into English were perused for the book. Character studies were done for those claiming the device did or did not work. Almost all who claimed it didn't work never saw it.

Mary Rose
Almost all who claimed it didn't work never saw it.

What does a 18th century fraud have to do with a heatpump?

reply to post by hellobruce


As it turns out, the popular and mainstream misconception about perpetual motion machines figures in quite centrally to popular and mainstream confusion about the possibilities for devices such as heat pumps.

Mary Rose
As it turns out, the popular and mainstream misconception about perpetual motion machines figures in quite centrally to popular and mainstream confusion about the possibilities for devices such as heat pumps.

You are making no sense at all again!

Perpetual motion machines do not exist, heat pumps do exist but they have nothing at all to do with free energy or perpetual motion machines.

hellobruce
. . . heat pumps do exist but they have nothing at all to do with free energy or perpetual motion machines.

If free energy is defined as energy in to the device that is from the environment rather than electrical power, yes, it is.

We have established on the thread now that the link to perpetual motion machines is that the term people have been using to describe a device that puts out more than you had to put in - "overunity" - is a bogus term designed to obfuscate and mislead so that suppression of free energy can succeed.

Mary Rose
If free energy is defined as energy in to the device that is from the environment rather than electrical power, yes, it is.

Where did you get that dafinition from?

We have established on the thread now that the link to perpetual motion machines is that the term people have been using to describe a device that puts out more than you had to put in - "overunity" - is a bogus term designed to obfuscate and mislead so that suppression of free energy can succeed.

What we have established as bogus is any claim to overunity or a working free energy machine! Also some people have a very poor understanding of physics, and how things actually work!

Mary Rose

hellobruce
. . . heat pumps do exist but they have nothing at all to do with free energy or perpetual motion machines.

If free energy is defined as energy in to the device that is from the environment rather than electrical power, yes, it is.

We have established on the thread now that the link to perpetual motion machines is that the term people have been using to describe a device that puts out more than you had to put in - "overunity" - is a bogus term designed to obfuscate and mislead so that suppression of free energy can succeed.

Yes, but how can I power my TV from heat?

Mary Rose
If free energy is defined as energy in to the device that is from the environment rather than electrical power, yes, it is.

That's the problem. Free energy shouldn't be defined that way.

Anyone trying to push that definition is being dishonest.

We have established on the thread now that the link to perpetual motion machines is that the term people have been using to describe a device that puts out more than you had to put in - "overunity" - is a bogus term designed to obfuscate and mislead so that suppression of free energy can succeed.

No we have not. The only thing we have established is that you still don't understand what you are arguing about.