It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Over-unity, a Novel attempt.

page: 4
2
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 02:26 PM
Frankly, I hate math.

No problem. At least we moved forward amicably.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, no qualms about admitting it. (I confuse myself sometimes). Point is though, the majority of us can unequivocally say this isn't going to work, simply by understanding the system as a whole without doing a lot of convoluted math. There is thousands upon thousands of empirical data to support this position.

edit on 3-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

If you have a submersible made of gold btw, it's apparent mass underwater would be 14.2 grams, while its actual mass 19.3

Given this the calculation you have for buoyancy by air is wrong. Since you need to lift the bearing back up to the top by the submersible.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
edit on 3-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 02:59 AM

The basic issue with the concept is that the air pump has to work against the water column to pump air into it. How much work is it? Just think it backwards. How much work would you need to get the floating weight with the air pocket down to the bottom of the column? That is the work the pump will have to deliver. Remember, there is no free lunch.

For anyone interested, there is a nice website about perpetual motion devices and how they (don't) work: www.lhup.edu...

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:19 AM

If you would set this up so as to inject the air into the float in the water, it would increase the water it displaces and make it rise better than the way you show it. By using a small valve, this air inside the float could be dumped when it reaches the top of the water; allowing it to sink and draw the ball back up.
I also notice you say nothing about the fact of the ball magnet having the same effects as it rises as when it falls. If any energy is generated in either direction, it should generate @ the same in the other. This could be where any "over-unity" could be realized.
edit on 4-12-2013 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:53 AM

boncho
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 minority.

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!

Stellar

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 02:20 PM
So for those who do not have the time to struggle trough my mess of a post what i MEANT to say is this:
In a decade or two we will be using vacuum energy or LERN in commercial plants and it will be accepted that the machines in which the processes takes place are not "over unity" because no one will be claiming that these processes and machine are impossible any more.

First it is denied as impossible then it is accepted as possible but useless and finally it has always been that way and no one every thought differently while the same type of people then move on to hold up progress in other fields.

This constitutes improvement for me and i hope it's somewhat more understandable.

Stellar

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:03 PM

moebius

The basic issue with the concept is that the air pump has to work against the water column to pump air into it. How much work is it? Just think it backwards. How much work would you need to get the floating weight with the air pocket down to the bottom of the column? That is the work the pump will have to deliver. Remember, there is no free lunch.

For anyone interested, there is a nice website about perpetual motion devices and how they (don't) work: www.lhup.edu...

Sorry for late replies, haven't been near the pc today.

How much work would you need to get the floating weight with the air pocket down to the bottom of the column?

I think you misunderstand, the submersible sinks on its own, it doesn't take any air down with it, and is heavier than the ball plus the ball receiver trays and any friction that may be in place....but any air that is collected at the bottom and used to float the submersible back up to the top is released by way of a float valve when it hits the surface.....hopefully.

But thanks for the questions, my initial description may not be understandable to all...I'm not the best at articulating my thoughts into text.

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:19 PM

teamcommander

If you would set this up so as to inject the air into the float in the water, it would increase the water it displaces and make it rise better than the way you show it. By using a small valve, this air inside the float could be dumped when it reaches the top of the water; allowing it to sink and draw the ball back up.
I also notice you say nothing about the fact of the ball magnet having the same effects as it rises as when it falls. If any energy is generated in either direction, it should generate @ the same in the other. This could be where any "over-unity" could be realized.
edit on 4-12-2013 by teamcommander because: (no reason given)

If you would set this up so as to inject the air into the float in the water, it would increase the water it displaces and make it rise better than the way you show it. By using a small valve, this air inside the float could be dumped when it reaches the top of the water; allowing it to sink and draw the ball back up.

I think this is pretty much as how I tried to describe in my initial post, or very similar.

I also notice you say nothing about the fact of the ball magnet having the same effects as it rises as when it falls. If any energy is generated in either direction, it should generate @ the same in the other. This could be where any "over-unity" could be realized

When I first thought of this many many months back, may even be years now, My idea was to have the magnet on a string, so it would have been lowered down through the coils as the submersible had risen through the water column and then pulled back up through the coils when the submersible sank.

The problem I thought then was the magnet would not travel through the coils fast enough to produce sufficient current to do any work, So I went for a free falling magnet instead and haven't thought about trying to retrieve it back up through the coils.....maybe something to consider if that would be possible.

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:22 PM

StellarX
So for those who do not have the time to struggle trough my mess of a post what i MEANT to say is this:
In a decade or two we will be using vacuum energy or LERN

NO WE WONT!!!

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:41 PM
It wont ever work, for many of the reasons already described.

You have that you are generating DC from the coil, that energy will be sent direct to a pump. That pump has to take air from the outside and compress it to a pressure greater than the pressure head in water column, (not that much on small scales) You have to have a valve with opens (by the way, if it is a solenoid it will have to use power to do this)

Basically this system is nowhere near able to get any kind of useful energy out. If it ever did the truth would be that the energy is coming from transferring the magnetic potential into electrical potential. It has here a minimum of 5 or 6 moving parts all are none efficient.

It is basically impossible to get working in any meaningful way without using imaginary materials and devices.

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:48 PM

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?

Because the system can have it's line drawn a little wider, just like a water wheel can, just like any other can. The sun burns fuel (quantifiable), the produces radiation (quantifiable), the solar cell picks up how much exactly? Not much at all. Horribly inefficient.

You are thinking on a consumer level perspective (calling me ignorant). That's nice.

So why isn't my car/gas tank over unity? It just took me x amount of joules to retrieve it from the ground? You do know what EROI is right?
edit on 4-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM

In the case of the Shake Flashlight It states 10-15 seconds of shaking will give 2-3 minutes of light...So 2.5 seconds shake would provide 30 seconds of light, unable to find specific info though, as to wattage of led etc.

This is pretty much the same principle needed for the design.

How many times would the magnet go through the coil whilst being shaken in 2.5 seconds ? ...I thought maybe 20 would be a conservative figure.

So if the coil in the torch is about 1" long (looks about right), then that would be 20" of coils plus about the same again for air gap distance between the coils to allow the magnet to regain its velocity ....So it could be the total height needed for the ball drop could be as little as 1 metre.

Which is good news when considering water pressure that would effect the submersible...1metre = 1/10 of an atmosphere...so that would add about 1.2 mls to the amount to offset the ball magnet.

edit on 4-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 07:10 PM

You have to have a valve with opens (by the way, if it is a solenoid it will have to use power to do this)

I thought maybe just a standard one way valve as used in the airlines in aquariums to prevent back siphoning (my aquarium pump is rated at only 2.5 psi and does ok pumping through this plus an airstone)....Or if not maybe something similar to a very small snorkel that has a bent top with a ping-pong kind of ball that shuts off when under water, but nothing electrical.

I haven't worked anything out precisely, as this was just an idea....Thought all the problems would be producing enough current from the coils......May still be.
edit on 4-12-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:09 PM
That is basically the biggest problem (which is a very very very big one) followed by the facts that mechanically it isnt sound.

Yep you are right, you can have a one way check valve with no electrical parts, but that power requirement is shifted over to the pump that has to maintain the forward pressure to keep the valve open... not sure if its a 1:1 transfer of the power, but i guess that it might be close since both work on electrical coils

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 08:40 PM

boncho
Because the system can have it's line drawn a little wider, just like a water wheel can, just like any other can. The sun burns fuel (quantifiable),

Yes and it will not run for billions of years ; it's perpetual motion unless you are pedant and wish to insist that it WILL run out thus it's free energy MUST be ignored by us because it will eventually run out and perpetual motion does not exist in the long run!

the produces radiation (quantifiable), the solar cell picks up how much exactly? Not much at all. Horribly inefficient.

Yes, horrible inefficient but if your government said it would give you 10 000 USD per month for no work would you accept it or would you say it's not sustainable and perpetual money giving is impossible? The earth's entire biosphere is as the result of plants using something like 2-3% of energy falling on them. Would you say that a electric circuit that intercepts 3% of the energy flowing around it is efficient or would you suggest that the system could be improved?

You are thinking on a consumer level perspective (calling me ignorant). That's nice.

And you are thinking like a professionally educated theorist&scientist who are paid to think about # that hardly matters( will not affect anyone in their lifetimes) 1/4 of the time and are used to blow up&spy on people the other 1/2. I am calling you ignorant because you refuse to accept that the sun IS a perpetual motion machine for your lifetime and that universe itself may have come into existence as result of some quantum flux; our entire universe may be a statistical anomaly as result as some left over energy and here you are arguing about how impossible a device that may provide a few excess watts&KW's is. Are you so ignorant of cosmology and physics in general that you can not spot the irony inherent in the vainglorious vendetta against everyone who dares suggest that there is as much fairness in how energy flows as there is in the rest of our observable universe?

So why isn't my car/gas tank over unity? It just took me x amount of joules to retrieve it from the ground?

Essentially yes as you did not grow the dinosaurs or build the sun or had to move the earths crust around to get to the state we recently started using it in. Next you will tell me it took more energy to get it above ground and refined than it actually provides in energy at the ICE level, right? So my point is if the earth was a closed or isolated system we would not exist and then perhaps small over unity machines might not either but since the earth is a open system in probably a open universe it's just nonsense to claim that energy flows is in balance on local scales and in short ( earths geological history) spans of time. It is both boring and sad to argue the way you and your ilk does and i really would like you to move on and find yourself some optimism.

You do know what EROI is right?
edit on 4-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

EROI is basically a 'methodology' trough which lay people( and educated people&scientist who do not believe they can or will be fooled)can be convinced of whatever you want them to believe by picking and choosing your data points; basically statistics but much harder to understand and verify. In theory it is a practical 'energy in' accounting method but like so much other accounting it's largely used to fool the vast majority the large majority of the time. The hydrogen economy? The oil economy? If you have a monopoly on violence and a education system you can convince people that the sun do not shine and that the sky isn't blue while you go nuts maniacally trying to hang on to your ill gotten wealth no matter the EROI and damned the human and environmental cost. Oil wars are profitable and provides endless centralized control and while central control is the aim EROI will not materially affect how we extract energy from our local environment.

Anyways all this talk about over unity takes the energy right out of me and i suspect that my EROI must be quite terrible. Soon i will have to start quoting smart people again and then my EROI will REALLY go all to hell.

Too bad as no one really likes studying quoted sources and actually doing some of that due diligence stuff. So boring all that looking trough the fine print of the underpinnings of our cosmology and physics.

Stellar

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 09:40 PM

edit on 4-12-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: dingo ate my post

posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 01:23 AM

I guess my question is: What can you do differently if "over unity" is a defined term.

(Forgetting that it is defined in a few different ways already. -COP/EROI,etc.)

What exactly changes? Will the OPs device suddenly power my house? Will lenr experiments suddenly power my TV?

What changes exactly? More importantly, which convoluted theory of everything is right? Bearden's, Mills? That really smelly guy downtown that keeps writing field equations all over the bus stop?

There is a long history of people in the scientific community garnering a ton of support going against the grain, it just so happens they lose it (or never had it in some cases) when they start claiming things that aren't backed by anything but their own narcissism.

edit on 5-12-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 06:29 PM

boncho
I guess my question is: What can you do differently if "over unity" is a defined term.

(Forgetting that it is defined in a few different ways already. -COP/EROI,etc.)

We may for one thing stop arguing about definitions so to put COP and EROI measurements in proper perspective just change the definition of your choice to reflect that the observed energy 'capture' may exceed the observed energy input without impacting on any of our known laws of thermodynamics or physics. Our inability to explain the source of the intercepted energy is no grounds for pretending that can't be there as we are in fact aware that we do NOT know where 90% of the energy density required to explain current cosmological theories resides.

What exactly changes? Will the OPs device suddenly power my house? Will lenr experiments suddenly power my TV?

The absolute vast majority of people today do not understand how their home's electrical systems are powered anyways ( and unless you have done specific research neither do you) and this will hold true in the future. If these technologies will be based on small generator sized devices or on mega scale fusion type centralized plants i can only speculate on as that involves factors beyond scientific necessity.

What changes exactly? More importantly, which convoluted theory of everything is right? Bearden's, Mills? That really smelly guy downtown that keeps writing field equations all over the bus stop?

In this i could argue that i have some ideas but to prove your very legitimate point i will make it simple and admit that i am probably ( despite some ideas to the contrary) as confused by all the conflicting stories&principles and ideas as you are. I could resort to blaming TPTB for all the confusion but i am growing older and i am no longer sure that their share of this mess is as significant as i once believed. I do however like 'following' Bearden as he has rather thick books that i can read ( and sometimes even understand) and seems to be at least loosely affiliated with the type of people&minds that may change the current status quo... As for the field equations it's only crazy until a large majority agrees that it's perfectly sane and , in fact, can't be another other way however weird it seems. If you have doubts just check up on our current cosmology, quantum theory to see how diligently massive gaping holes of understanding can be glossed over provided that the general theory somehow fits with other well established work...

There is a long history of people in the scientific community garnering a ton of support going against the grain, it just so happens they lose it (or never had it in some cases) when they start claiming things that aren't backed by anything but their own narcissism.

And i have a serious issue with the suggestion that extraordinary evidence should be required whenever a scientist suggest that a current model is incomplete or wrong. Evidence is in my view evidence and it should not take authority or standing to have your views heard or peer reviewed ( it doesn't take that to be accurate) even if it may upset the life's work and funding sources for those people who hold opposing views. Clearly much of what may look like conspiratorial actions may just be due to people protecting their reputations and, literally, daily bread but there is a flavor of conspiracy to be considered when people are so systematically misinformed as to believe things about scientific theories&laws which never was and isn't today the case. As for narcissism that is not a state of mind i can associate with people who are trying to liberate ( or at the very least enrich themselves at practically no one's expense) humanity from the competition for energy and resources that have become the basis of our economic activity.

Scarcity as motive&explanatory force for selfish individual action stands today as the root cause of practically all the social 'evils' i can think of and an attempt to overturn this ( despite the obvious forces conspiring to keep energy flows in centralized for profit hands) is in my opinion both noble and worthy of the physical and emotional risks that going against established power always entails.

Since i suggested that i have sources for more specific claims about how humanity interact with energy on the planet we can get into that if you are tired of the 'theory' part of this.
I can not promise that i will type less but i can promise that there will be some more substance...

Stellar

new topics

top topics

2