What do you consider to be OU.

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > bemf > What do you consider to be OU.

2024-11-26, 15:26:59
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Author Topic: What do you consider to be OU. (Read 53902 times)

Magluvin	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #25 on: 2013-02-19, 00:27:30 »
Group: Guest	I here a lot of, well, where does the extra energy come from? Some even say extra electrons... As for the extra energy, lets say for example, if someone had a specially wound transformer, and even a special core and configuration. Lets say it were possible that the primary was able to induce more into the secondary. By way of its specialness, the secondary doesnt affect the primary the same way like a normal transformer. Like the specialness lends to a way of fooling the primary and secondary into believing that the other is different than what they really are. Lets say that we have a special transformer that has 10v 1a input and 20v 1a output. If the primary and secondary were running continuously in this mode described, there should be the same amount of electrons flowing through each coil. Where did the extra electrons come into play? There are none. They are just being pushed around, because they are there. But there is more energy because the secondary thinks it was induced as much from the primary. Theoretically speaking with a load that pulls 1a at 20v. So the secondary was tricked into producing 20v from 10v at the same amperage. If there is a 'trick', a way to do it that is not known or well known yet, that can be instilled in a transformer to make it special, and it were understood 'how' the special transformer functioned, physically, whether it be gating the fields, electromagnetic/electric leveraging. air gap cores, even with magnets, or by way of different windings or multiple cores for separate 'magnetic circuits' within, then might we still be looking for where that extra energy comes from? I dont think that we 'always' have to hold to the story that the energy has to come from somewhere else. Though all those that look upon these devices and ideas with unbreakable doubt, it is the first thing they will tell you. Mags

muDped	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #26 on: 2013-02-19, 02:22:49 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: Magluvin I dont think that we 'always' have to hold to the story that the energy has to come from somewhere else. Though all those that look upon these devices and ideas with unbreakable doubt, it is the first thing they will tell you. Though we may hope after hope wish to think otherwise, unfortunately, it is true. The "black" in Black Projects is not without meaning. At the very deepest (and darkest) levels it is known that the energy does come from "somewhere else." --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #27 on: 2013-02-19, 09:47:01 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Paul-R on 2013-02-18, 16:56:28 "...a well defined system...closed or apparently closed". They never are. That is the point. That's not the point. We don't know if they are closed or not in terms of input/output energy, but we know if they are closed or not inside the state of the art (scientific knowledge). "Apparently closed" means "closed relative to the state of the art in scientific matter, from the viewpoint of the energy". This condition is necessary and sufficient to demonstrate something new in matter of energy in case of the EM's formula shows OU>0. We search for a breakthrough that the formula can confirm. Quote I think the best definition is one which Patrick K proposed at one of the UK Free energy Conferences: This is the ratio that counts. I think he said: Energy output by device -------------------------------------- = OU Energy that YOU put in Insufficient formula: - the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented. - according to this formula, nuclear energy from radioactive matter inside the device would be "OU" (in EM's formula, this is prevented by the term "final stored energy - initial stored energy").

Paul-R	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #28 on: 2013-02-19, 17:03:21 »
Hero Member Posts: 1579	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-19, 09:47:01 - the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented. Cling on to your beliefs, Exnihiloest, and you need never feel insecure.

Farrah Day	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #29 on: 2013-02-19, 19:10:23 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-16, 04:17:09 If all we have to do to have an OU device is to have a self sustaining device-then we already have that. Most on other forums will say that an OU device is a device that draws in extra energy from the environment to give us a larger output than the input that is supplied by us human's (energy we have to pay for) This is also considered to be a free energy machine. But if some one was to put forth a simple system that fills all the requirement above,but it was something that already exists-then it dosnt fit the class of an OU or free energy device? A simple example: 1 x 80 watt solar pannel 1 x charge controller 1 x 80 amp hour 12 volt battery And 1 x 5 watt LED light. If this simple system is put together,it will run that light continuously 24 hours a day -365 days a year. This system fit's all the requirements above to be an OU device,but is not considered to be one because it is now a mainstream device (the solar pannel) But as long as the sun rises every day,the device will continue to opperate-a device that uses energy provided by our enviroment. Just to bring this around to the original page one post, and my two-penneth. I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device. This device merely converts one source of energy to another, and if the Sun goes out, then the system stops working - hence it requires a constant (or regular) source of input energy. I see this example as being no different from boiling a saucepan of water over an active volcano! Sure the energy is effectively free to us, but it is not OU. I mean, surely no one would consider a 365 day Grandfather clock as an OU device simply because it will merrily tick-tock away for a year before it stops? Pull the weights to the top, set the pendulum swinging and the clock will tell the tiime for a whole year without further energy input. Gravity does the work... but sadly like Tseungs device, the energy eventually runs out. Tseung seems to think that his Joule Thief is OU for the time it takes to stop working - lol, he should move onto Grandfather clocks, he gets more OU for his time... or should that be more time for his OU? $:-\$

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #30 on: 2013-02-19, 22:14:52 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013-02-19, 19:10:23 Just to bring this around to the original page one post, and my two-penneth. I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device. This device merely converts one source of energy to another, and if the Sun goes out, then the system stops working - hence it requires a constant (or regular) source of input energy. I see this example as being no different from boiling a saucepan of water over an active volcano! Sure the energy is effectively free to us, but it is not OU. I mean, surely no one would consider a 365 day Grandfather clock as an OU device simply because it will merrily tick-tock away for a year before it stops? Pull the weights to the top, set the pendulum swinging and the clock will tell the tiime for a whole year without further energy input. Gravity does the work... but sadly like Tseungs device, the energy eventually runs out. Tseung seems to think that his Joule Thief is OU for the time it takes to stop working - lol, he should move onto Grandfather clocks, he gets more OU for his time... or should that be more time for his OU? $:-\$ If the sun go's out,the last thing we will be worried about is an OU device. An OU device has to get it's extra energy from some where?,as we cannot create energy-only transform it from one form to another. So it must come from an enviromental sorce,such as the sun provides that energy input to the solar pannel-wich converts it from one form to another. At the very least,the solar pannel must be seen as a free energy device. So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing?

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #31 on: 2013-02-20, 02:29:54 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-19, 22:14:52 So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing? The intrinsic angular momentum of particles (or constituents if you don't like that word).

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #32 on: 2013-02-20, 07:36:09 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Paul-R on 2013-02-19, 17:03:21 Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-19, 10:47:01 - the frontiers of the device delimiting what is "in" and "out" are not defined because the notion of "closed system" is not implemented Cling on to your beliefs, Exnihiloest, and you need never feel insecure. Irrelevant statement (ad hominem). What don't you understand, Paul-R, about the need of defining the boundaries of the device in order to identify what is "power in" and "power out"? I'm not sure that you will ever understand this but I could try to explain you... « Last Edit: 2013-02-20, 08:42:32 by exnihiloest »

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #33 on: 2013-02-20, 07:39:41 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2013-02-20, 02:29:54 The intrinsic angular momentum of particles (or constituents if you don't like that word). This would deplete the angular momentum and thus, energy from elsewhere should be needed to maintain it.

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #34 on: 2013-02-20, 08:39:29 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013-02-19, 19:10:23 ... I for one certainly don't consider a solar panel to be an OU device. ... Only because you know that the energy comes from the sun and the system is not closed. If you ignored it, you would see OU. We must define OU relative to a (a priori) closed system. Imagine that we ignore the existence of the sun and our system is a solar panel. We define our closed system as being the solar panel, its boundaries are the material surfaces delimiting its volume. Therefore we see more energy out than in, nothing is depleted inside, so we have OU because the system is supposed to be closed and the EM's formula is >0. We are very happy that our panel is an OU device and now we want to know if the energy is created from nothing (type 1), from ambient heat (type 2) or for an inextinguishable source (type 3). We lead experiments and observe a flux of energy coming from the sun. Thus our system must be considered open, and after defining the interfaces of our system with the outside, we can still apply EM's formula, calculate that the "power in" (light) crossing the interface is more than the electrical "power out", therefore we have no more OU relative to this open system. This is the test method that I suggest for any apparently closed system outputting energy. OU depends on the definition of the system that is studied, it is relative to it. There is not absolute OU except for a perpetual motion of type 1.

Farrah Day	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #35 on: 2013-02-20, 09:51:04 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-19, 22:14:52 An OU device has to get it's extra energy from some where?,as we cannot create energy-only transform it from one form to another. So it must come from an enviromental sorce,such as the sun provides that energy input to the solar pannel-wich converts it from one form to another. At the very least,the solar pannel must be seen as a free energy device. So what sorce of energy would an OU device be useing? Agreed, additional energy to overcome inherent system losses must come from somewhere, which puts me of a mind that there will never be such a thing as a true OU device, merely a perceived OU device. The best we can hope for is to maximise efficiency and find a way of utilising the energy around us, whether it be from the immediate environment or the Cosmos - and I think most of us would be quite happy with that. A solar panel derives it's energy from the Sun and so is effectively free to us, but I still wouldn't expect Pout to be greater than Pin. I think the more mysterious the apparent OU energy is, the more intriguing. A simple electrical cct that could light an LED continuously (that is, forever) and at the same intensity would only be considered OU (as Exn has alluded to) until the nature of the additional energy was determined. Though if Tseung is anything to go by, we are still quite a long way from achieving this. I quite agree that many things can seem like OU until you discover and account for the additional energy being inputted (or drawn) into the system. To me the fascination would be to discover the nature of this additional energy, and ways to efficiently utilise it. All this said, I'm yet to see anyone produce a so-called OU device whereby the apparent additional energy can't be easily explained - in fact I'm yet to see anything that has impressed me by running itself, which let's face it, is the ultimate goal and indeed the ultimate test.

Paul-R	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #36 on: 2013-02-20, 10:06:55 »
Hero Member Posts: 1579	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-20, 07:36:09 What don't you understand, Paul-R, about the need of defining the boundaries of the device in order to identify what is "power in" and "power out"? You have to deal with what is real. Consider the high voltage high frequency banging of coils. There are no boundaries that can be dealt with. That is the point. That is the snag. You could put into an equation a term like "the energy content of space/environment. But then, your problems are only just beginning.

gridbias	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #37 on: 2013-02-20, 12:39:42 »
Group: Guest	It is my belief that any so called overunity device will convert one kind of energy to another so overunity would be the term used by somebody who knew nothing about the energy source . Once learned it would known by the maker to be a conversion device. I think that what we are looking for is something that taps the energy that is around us . The question is can such a device cannot exist in the capatalist environment we are all attached to . The money men would always wind up with it. It is my opinion that the money men are held back but at a far more advanced level where interests that the common "us" do not even come close to dealing with directly . Perhaps when we all learn that we all have enough, start sharing , and stop blowing each other up, things will change . But then, I might be entirely wrong

exnihiloest	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #38 on: 2013-02-20, 14:06:27 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Paul-R on 2013-02-20, 10:06:55 You have to deal with what is real. Consider the high voltage high frequency banging of coils. There are no boundaries that can be dealt with. That is the point. That is the snag. You could put into an equation a term like "the energy content of space/environment. But then, your problems are only just beginning. You are really stopped by the least problem. The boundaries can be the surface of an enclosing container designed to prevent EM waves, sound and so on to escape, and having well known interfaces to observe what is going in and out. That's what I call "to deal with what is real", otherwise you don't deal with reality, you undergo its diktats.

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #39 on: 2013-02-20, 14:40:09 »
Group: Guest	So -the reason i started this thread and asked the question !! what is overunity to you !! is because of a comment ION made to me on the nauden thread Quote:-True, incremental improvements are worthwhile and are being pursued worldwide to alleviate the energy crisis, and is the subject of many other forums, however the intent of this forum is overunity research. In that regard we can view EX's statement: Now while i agree with the comment from ION (the intent of this forum is overunity reserch) it would seem that going by most comment's-there is no overunity device's. The reason i say this is-in most peoples eye's here,it would seem that it will only be concidered to be OU until the energy sorce is explained. It will then become just another solar pannel. This is where the name ! overunity reserch ! becomes an interesting name for the forum. It's almost saying-we are here reserching something that dosnt exist? I think maybe we are serching for a mystery and not overunity. A challenge to explain the sorce of energy,just as those 100 years ago would have been trying to explain the solar cell when it was first invented. But what if some one actualy made a working PMM? Lets say that to magnetise the magnets in the PMM took 200 watts of energy-but that PMM which was driving a generator produced 500 watts befor the magnets were depleeted. Would this be an OU device?. We would then have an action of 200 watts ,and a reaction of 500 watt's-this just opens another can of worm's It would seem my very simple question is quite difficult to answer-and we all seem to have our own ideas as to what overunity is-or is not.

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #40 on: 2013-02-20, 14:41:58 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-20, 07:39:41 This would deplete the angular momentum and thus, energy from elsewhere should be needed to maintain it. Yes, and this is what occurs in a homopolar generator. Perhaps there is a natural way to replentish the angular momentum that we have not discovered yet.

Farrah Day	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #41 on: 2013-02-20, 15:09:32 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-20, 14:40:09 I think maybe we are serching for a mystery and not overunity. That's exactly how I see it, Tinman. However, we don't even have any real mystery yet... do we? I mean, even given all the various claims over all the various years, the reality is that we do not yet have a verified self-runner to be mystified by.

giantkiller	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #42 on: 2013-02-20, 15:12:38 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1593 Frequency equals matter...	Straight from SMs mouth: Quote Once learned it would known by the maker to be a conversion device. --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

ion	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #43 on: 2013-02-20, 15:22:53 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Consider the hydroelectric dam. It allows potential energy to accumulate by creating a barrier to a natural flow. We perceive it as solar driven, evaporating water to the atmosphere in the form of vapor, which then condenses and finds its way to the back side of the dam. Then a portion is allowed to flow that we tap. Since it is the "form" of the dam that creates the barrier, are there other barriers to natural flow that we can create other "forms" to accumulate and utilize energy?. Being solar driven the hydro dam's true operation would involve questions of where the sun came from and so on leading to some very large mysteries. Although the ultimate answer may be there, I, for one, lack the perspective to properly contemplate these mysteries and thus arrive at the "ultimate solution". I would, however, be interested in a practical device that could act in the manner of the "barrier" that could allow energy to accumulate and be tapped. In the larger picture, it may not be true OU according to some of the definitions given, but might satisfy our energy needs on an individual basis. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #44 on: 2013-02-20, 15:44:58 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ION on 2013-02-20, 15:22:53 I would, however, be interested in a practical device that could act in the manner of the "barrier" that could allow energy to accumulate and be tapped. In the larger picture, it may not be true OU according to some of the definitions given, but might satisfy our energy needs on an individual basis. One of my first post describe's what you mention above. The battery is the barrier,the sun is the energy and the light's are the tap's Now i know-this is just main stream,so of no interest here. But what about a gravity device? Yes-we have gravity powered devices aswell. These devices deliver 1000s of Kw's. Here is the big problem.People see gravity as being a vertical force,but the ocean's of the world also see an oscilating horizontal force aswell. From this we have tidle power-power station's. As long as the moon keeps on moving around the earth-the energy will keep comeing. Another main stream system-so no interest here. Do we see a pattern forming? What we think may be fantastic today,will be another main stream device tomorow-and then we will be looking for the next. What we have here is perpetual motion,in that once we discover the energy input-we will move on to the next device. This will keep going until the end of time. But first we need the next device,so as we have an energy to look for.

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #45 on: 2013-02-20, 20:19:55 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	How does gravity transfer angular momentum between objects without physical contact?

muDped	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #46 on: 2013-02-20, 20:31:36 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3055	Quote from: Farrah Day on 2013-02-20, 15:09:32 ...we don't even have any real mystery yet... do we? I mean, even given all the various claims over all the various years, the reality is that we do not yet have a verified self-runner to be mystified by. There have been a few mysterious devices which seemed to produce the "Overunity" so much sought after. Oddly, those devices have not been successfully replicated by any of the numerous experimenters striving to do so. Until we are prepared to deal seriously with the "Alien" question, and beyond, it will indeed remain a mystery for the many. The real source of what seems to be "Overunity" is too fearful a thought for most to come to terms with. Disclosure is forthcoming. Disappointment will be widespread. Man tends to overlook the enormous energy provided by our Sun, in all its forms, to Planet Earth continually. Were we able to harness but a small fraction of that we'd have many times more energy available to all inhabitants of the Globe than is presently produced by all of the fuel wasting "grids" combined. But then, those who are in control of our World System know this well... --------------------------- For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.

tinman	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #47 on: 2013-02-20, 22:40:10 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: Grumpy on 2013-02-20, 20:19:55 How does gravity transfer angular momentum between objects without physical contact? The very same way magnets do.

Grumpy	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #48 on: 2013-02-20, 23:02:17 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: tinman on 2013-02-20, 22:40:10 The very same way magnets do. but a magnet only works when something is moving

Rosphere	Re: What do you consider to be OU. « Reply #49 on: 2013-02-20, 23:04:30 »
Group: Guest	overunity over unity > 1 energy out/in > 1 energy out > energy in Out and in... to and from... a bounded space. Bordered by whom? Quote from: exnihiloest on 2013-02-20, 08:39:29 Only because you know that the energy comes from the sun and the system is not closed. If you ignored it, you would see OU. ... OU depends on the definition of the system that is studied, it is relative to it. ... I agree, the lifespan of overunity ceases upon the discovery of the source. It is a fleeting term, a misnomer. overunityresearch.com misnomerresearch.com? "Oops! Google Chrome could not find misnomerresearch.com" It is available, should we take it?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-26, 15:26:59

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2