posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:53 AM
There is a 300 page thread on this already. If you want offer up "Your" version of over unity. Because it appears to be a relative term.
If it took 300 pages not many people could have had a clue as to what was being discussed and as always it probably came from the ignorance on on side
and the willful denial on the other.
Of course, it has history being used in math/statistics, as "over unity=over 1" meaning that a math problem had a bad equation. "These
formulas are wrong I ended up with over 1"
This is only a 'problem' when dealing with closed or isolated thermodynamic systems but since we are not aware of any in the first case and ongoing
discussions about the second it makes your point moot and based entirely on a perpetuated misunderstanding of thermodynamics. If you are worried that
you are in ignorant company by believing what most do you should not worry and i would not dream of accusing you of being in some kind of enlightened
Then you have the perpetual motion crowd, who started saying "over unity" because they realized "perpetual motion" would immediately end
any conversation they were having. (Hundreds of years of trying to get a rock to fly does that.)
As perpetual motion machines go we may propose such a state for the universe but other than that it's pretty silly and normally only intended to
describe the fact that it will seem that way in terms of human life spans and economic utility. To confuse the definition with the understood reality
is again just that same old educated&willful spite which will insist that despite the practical fact of all the open thermodynamic systems 'we' (the
scientific community) will just insist that perpetual motion must be impossible in isolated thermodynamic systems; apples and oranges.
Over unity in the practical sense is a description of what can happen in open thermodynamic systems such as say the Earth; if it wasn't for the sun
nothing would happen here as plate tectonics&radioactive decay&orbital stresses ( and all the other factors ) simply does not compare to the free
radiation from the sun. When people talk about over unity devices what they are essentially saying is that the device is by this or that method
gaining access to EXISTING energy flows ( the absence of solar panels does not mean the radiation goes away) ; those who suggest that energy is being
created instead of being intercepted are probably as badly confused as both parties general( and legitimately) are.
Then you have the obfuscation of claiming that over unity is something different, new, but really people are just pushing COP, except they
simply refuse COP calculations, or the basic principle.
The terms are both widely misunderstood ( by both sides) and widely misused so while i understand your confusion i must point out that i have not
noticed you doing very much to try clear up the question of misunderstood&misrepresent definitions.
So yes, do enlighten us.
I wish i could claim to have thought all this up but if i were that smart i may very well have been doing something more productive with my time.
Suffice to say these are not new ideas as much as they are ideas that have been consistently been rejected by the scientist&economic dogma's that
refuse to let go of their dog eat dog model of physics&biology&economics. The fact that the vast majority of our leading minds are being so
systematically misinformed as to basic principles speaks volumes as to how dangerous even a basic understanding of the future potential of humanity
can be to those who have control and wish to keep it
The OP has drummed up a classic perpetual motion machine. And calls it over unity. Great example of the difference.
As i described earlier few people understand the difference between the 'energy' we can meter&observe going into the open system and the fact that
the energy metered coming out might be more based on the fact that i't preexisting and not in fact 'generated' by the device&process. Much is made
of the fact that matter probably only make up 3-5% of the Universe ( which may actually suggest that our cosmological models are just flawed or
incomplete) and yet people such as yourself blithely go ahead and dismiss over unity in small open thermodynamic systems when the vast majority of the
energy required to keep this universe together is not accounted for? Do you have some sort of quasi religious/ scientific objection to some of that
energy showing up and giving us a similar sort of free lunch as the sun is in relation to the earth's biosphere?
I mean humanity and life on earth IS the resulted of a free lunch ( intercepted energy we did not pay or work for but at least understand) and yet
such must be impossible for small devices of odd and badly understood design? Solar panels are not over unity in every practical sense or is over
unity OK as long as 'we' understand where the energy flow comes from? Lets then talk about the impractical theoretical sense then? How is solar
panels not over unity devices over the span of their useful lifetimes? Would you quantify human intelligence in such high energy usage terms that you
can make solar panels appear to lose their users 'energy' in the long term?
Just how does the thought process proceed that denies humanity the capacity to intercept existing energy flows with our gift of intellect? We have
nuclear reactions that can liberate truly vast quantities of energy and yet the pedants will keep on insisting that the energy was always there? Well
was the energy not there before the nuclear age? Was the oil economy possible before we understood how to liberate it? When we exploit vacuum energy
will that just be accepted as we then admit that that too exists?
It all REALLY is very fascinating how the scientific community and it's lay person supporters can confuse quite useless scientific principles ( we
have not proved the existence of isolated or closed thermodynamic systems) with practical reality and how scientific progress itself undermines the
previous generations claim to knowing how things are how they will stay!