It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
No problem. At least we moved forward amicably.
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.
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"
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.)
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.
So yes, do enlighten us.
The OP has drummed up a classic perpetual motion machine. And calls it over unity. Great example of the difference.
moebius
reply to post by ken10
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...
How much work would you need to get the floating weight with the air pocket down to the bottom of the column?
teamcommander
reply to post by ken10
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 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
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
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?
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.
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)
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),
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)
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.)
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.