Over Unity systems exist in the real world.

[Oilburner]

Notice I said "systems"

Let us take an hypothetical but potentially real world example.

There is a greenhouse on a small hill and below it is a stream. You need a small amount of water in the greenhouse but you have no power available to pump that water up to it.

"Hydraulic water rams are an inexpensive, creative way to pump water. These semi-efficient, self acting pumps use the force of water running down stream to pump water up an elevation: with six feet of drop, a hydraulic ram pump will lift water 100 feet up a hill."

OK, that gets us some water up the hill without using any power/energy/labor. Yes we are using the energy of the water flowing down the stream to do this, but it is "free" the water would have gone downhill anyway.

This greenhouse needs cooling in summer, what would it cost to run an air conditioner in there to "pump" out the heat as compared to using a solar chimney to create a draught and using the constantly flowing water we have from our water ram to cool the incoming air (swamp cooler)

Heating.

Do we use electricity to heat the greenhouse or do we use electricity to power a pump that moves heat from solar panels to a storage tank in daytime and then at night moves warm water to radiators within the greenhouse? just thinking about that one, if we took the water from the water ram output and put it through the solar panels then into the storage tank then out through the radiators we would not need any external power to heat the greenhouse at night.

This is an "ideal scenario" the objective was to keep a greenhouse coolish during the day and a bit warmer than ambient at night using no external power source except  a stream and the sun.

Compare the costs of that against the costs of energy for pumping, heating and cooling. If it costs less then you are getting "Over Unity" as in you are getting more out of the system (in regards to energy usage/wastage ) than you are putting in.

Now the real world!!!

Where I am in spring and fall during the day you need misters and fans to keep a greenhouse below 90F and at night you need the heaters on as it is well below freezing at night.

Storing the day heat and releasing it at night using loads of black poly tubing and 1000gal storage tanks costs one hell of a lot less than heating and cooling directly.

So, can we have a new name for MOVING energy to a place where you need it (heating) or moving it away (cooling) using little or no "power" that does not scare away the under or over unity people?

My imaginary system uses no external "power" but it moves energy around.  

[JW]

Sounds like BioSphere technology. That experiment they performed out in Arizona used diesel gen-sets to provide power. Thinking about that, I dont remember any use of solar energy reclaimation, solar heating, solor panels or even wind turbines.

 My best guess for a new name for "MOVING energy" would be the law of conservation. This whole buisness of over-unityers being scared way is totally out of proportion. This arguement is an illusion, since its even encouraged to post such things in the weird science catagory. Theres alot of valid points why this is so. No one is really being impeaded. Usually it just doesnt get in the way.

 This site deals with quite abit of applied pratical knowledge. This site is growing, the information stream of this "type' of practical info, is growing larger, actually this is the majority of material content here.

-JW  

[Oilburner]

BioSphere was an experiment in a self contained environment where they started off with a set amount of plant material, water, oxygen and animals and tried to make it a self sustaining environment.

My Idea of "over unity" is paying for grid power to give me more heating and cooling by being creative than directly using that grid power for doing the same.

I am not creating energy, I am just using it differently.

[JW]

Youre totally right about the BioSpere2 project. It was totally self contained, personally I think this was the largest design flaw, if they really wanted it to work, they would have included a water source versa a fuel source.

 You make a good point about using energy Oilburner.

Well since im ranting,

 I think the atmosphere in a biospere could be maintained on a larger scale, useing biomass crop farming for O2 production, and Co2 production from good clean combustion, to augment plant growth. You would have an energy(electric) supply for lighting and whatever else. All you would need is a viable water supply. Sunshine would be a bonus.

-JW

the cornburner guy

[laskey]

>Compare the costs of that against the costs of energy for pumping, heating and cooling. If it costs less then you are getting "Over Unity" as in you are getting more out of the system (in regards to energy usage/wastage ) than you are putting in.<

That's a crazy definition.  Derived from your own words, if I took an extension cord over to my neighbour's house and plugged it into his outside outlet and used it to power my house, I'd have an overunity device because I only had to pay for the extension cord.  I'd be getting "free energy".

Come on, you can do better than that.

Cya,

Chris

[Oilburner]

Yes I can do better than that...

If I built a solar panel and stuck it in my yard so that it put my neighbour's solar panel in the shade then that would be the same as plugging my pump into his/her power socket.

By my definition I am redistributing energy, by your definition you are redistributing energy towards yourself that some one else is paying for.

Now take that a stage further, if your neighbour was running a PV array or a windmill and he/she only allowed power to flow down your extension cord when they had a surplus you would be getting "free" energy and your neighbour would not have to buy/build a dump load.

Given a source of "warm" a heat pump can heat up a building using much less electricity than using electricity as a source of heat alone. Fact. A heat pump MOVES heat, not just generates it.

[wildbill hickup]

If all this is true then the overunity problem is solved. The sun is going to shine weather you use it or not! Your not going to deplete the suns power by putting up a solar panel right. Well except the shade you create on the plantlife below, but if you put the panel on your house the shade would be there anyway, maybe you could even power a grow lig...OK far enough. We could even stretch this and say that grvity motors work - gravity drives water downhill - water harnessed by a hydroturbine generates power - hence anyone with a hydroturbine has a gravity machine right. The water is going down hill anyway!!!

Sorry guys just an observation  :~)

[jacquesm]

Well, the best example I can think of is a 'heat pump', it involves running a bunch of pipes underground and pumping water through them. The net expense in electricity is far less than the gain in BTU's. You can easily heat your house with one of those thingies. In fact if I had designed this house from the ground up that's exactly what I would have used, now I'm stuck with an outdoor woodstove.

[jacquesm]

over unity is not defined as a device that takes energy from somewhere else, by your definition a pump at a gas station is an over unity device because the gas that it pumps contains more joules than the current that drives the motors.

It would help the whole scene a lot if everybody started to use the same words to mean the same things.

I have seen creative redefinition of terms used quite a few times by people trying to make an -erroneous- point. It's a pretty good way to get an argument started but it leads absolutely nowhere. All it does is confuse people.

[wildbill hickup]

I hope most folks took my previous statement in a humorous way. I guess I'll have to stick to the rules "Keep in mind that sarcastic and cynical comments that you might make in person (with a smile on your face!) often appear to be very rude on a discussion board." My appologies to all. :-(

[Bach On]

Chris,

Is it possible that "That's a crazy definition." could be said less harshly? I, for one, wouldn't like the word crazy used in describing my ideas or words.

Example - "I completely disagree with your definition."

BachOn

 

[TomW]

burner;

Exactly the kind of "science" that keeps me on this side of reality. I'll be nice and just say "Very interesting reality you have, sir".

T

[drdongle]

 While the several examples describes can move energy around none are over unity.

An over unity system must deliver an energy output greater than it's energy input.

Any example would be a black box that when connected to a battery providing 100 watts of power will in turn deliver at the out put 200 watts of usable power.

The simple proof of over unity is that the system can power it's self, by looping back out put to the input (and disconnecting the starter battery or source) and still perform work.

 None of the systems of earth do this ( in any form) as the SUN is providing a constant power input and in some cases energy from the sun that is stored in various forms in the earth is used to provide power. It is only through the constant input of energy that that any system on Earth continues to operate and when the Sun goes out the earth is screwed ( current theory says that is 5 billion years away).

 I personally hold out for the possibility that some newly discovered physical phenomena, or application of some new understanding of physics may provide a way to "bend" the rules or provide for a way to siphon of energy from a currently unknown or unavailable source ( eather, zero point).

These of course are not over unity, simply new applications that again allow us to again move energy from one place to another.

Carpe Vigor

Dr.D

[richhagen]

I'm with Drdongle on this, my working definition of over unity would be a closed system with more energy output than input under steady state conditions.  If such a system existed, it would violate the 'laws' of thermodynamics, and its discoverer could easily claim their Nobel prize as those 'laws' have never been proven to have been broken to the scientific community.  The systems oilburner described if I interpret them correctly are not over unity by that definition as they only move energy from one place to another, or convert energy from one form to another.  By that definition, wind turbines could be interpreted to be over unity.  Basically, its a difference in defining the term over unity.  P.S. if anyone out there can reproducibly violate any of the three laws of thermodynamics, and don't need the Nobel Prize money, please let me know how, I could sure use it.  This comment is meant in a good spirited manner, Just having fun, Rich Hagen

[finnsawyer]

I'd also add that the device must work anywhere; on Mount Everest, on the Moon, at the bottom of the sea, in a lead mine, etc.  

Here's one to contemplate.  Suppose we could build a device that using capillary action would draw water to a height of 100 feet or so.  The water was then used to generate power as it fell back to earth.  Would the water source eventually freeze?  That is, where would the energy come from?  Trees do it all the time, but the water evaporates and is lost.

[drdongle]

Trees use energy from the SUN and organic mater ( soil)to power their biological "system".

Carpe Vigor

Dr.D

[finnsawyer]

But capillary action does not require a biological system.  You can demonstrate it in the lab.  You're skirting the question.  The sun is not involved.

[richhagen]

More than you probably want to know about capillary action is located:

http://27.1911encyclopedia.org/C/CA/CAPILLARY_ACTION.htm

You made me think about this one a bit.  Basically, you would require more energy due to friction, ect. to overcome the adhesive forces at play in the capillary in order to remove the water from the tubes than you would generate in the first place.  In the case of a tree, the energy is supplied by the sun and environment. I think there may be some osmotic pressure generated by the plant as well, thats why if you cut off a tree it continues to bleed sap for a bit.  The basic reason for capillary action is that entropy increases while the energy of the system remains the same.  It does not appear to violate the laws of thermodynamics.  Just having fun, Rich Hagen

[jacquesm]

Ok, so here is a real answer:

In order to make capilary action do something useful you have to get the fluid out of the top end of the tube that it is 'sucked' into (it isn't really sucked in there, it's surface tension trying to create a minimum energy configuration, but for this example it's good enough).

The moment you try to let the fluid stream out of the top end so it can go and do some work the flow will stop.

Unless evaporation or some other heat engine removes the top layer of fluid (like in a tree), then you will see some more fluid move upwards. Putting a paddle wheel in a capilary device is not going to work (too small, surface tension will no longer work).

[finnsawyer]

You got it.  Ain't going to work.  Can't get the fluid out the top.  Isn't nature wonderful?  It just isn't going to give us a free energy lunch.  Now what if we could get the fluid to flow out on demand half way down?

[finnsawyer]

Obviously, I can't put one over on you guys.  There's a lot of good minds frequenting this board.  I salute them.  But I think this example shows why one has to be real careful in evaluating claims involving electromechanical energy systems.

[richhagen]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by on demand, but basically, if you tapped a capillary tube half way up, the fluid would just sit there and you would still have to do work to get it out, more energy would be required than you could generate with it.  Rich Hagen

[RobD]

If over unity exists in the real world no one has found it.

Over unity or a COP greater than 1, means that you apply less power into a device than you get out of that device. Period!

A stream gives you power, are you getting more out than the stream is supplying. No, regardless of the energy that is being converted to stream power?

Some of you are looking for over unity, fine but think about this: How many of you have built a tool instrument or windmill and had it fail because of some simple mechanical mistake. Now think about all the great minds throughout history that have inquired in to over-unity. Did Einstein come up with it, Hawking, Feynman. These guys make us all look like dolts. How many of you have degrees in Theoretical physics? Because that's the areas your delving into.

I like to bring up Bedini because this is a perfect example of how a little bit of double talk can create a whole following of people. His 'invention' is crude, simple and easily dismissed by anyone past electronics 101. He has given no proof of his hypothesis so why does anyone think this contraption can work?

If you want to go into over-unity then start by educating yourselves scientifically so that you don't spend weeks, months or years trying to develop something that science and Newtonian physics disproved 300 years ago.

Geeeese............

[Oilburner]

Glad you mentioned COP as in Coefficient of performance.

No one has really said that my system will not work, they have just been responding to the "Over Unity" statement.

 "Over unity or a COP greater than 1, means that you apply less power into a device than you get out of that device. Period!"

A commercial heat pump is not an over unity device because you involve energy from outside. It does however have a COP of between 2 to 3 when used for heating. A resistive element when used for heating has a COP of one.

So we have a mix of terminology, COP is a real world mesurable definition. Over Unity is a theoretical beast. (and unobtainable in my view}

TomW,

Will my science work though?

finsawyer,

Capillary action moves several hundred tons of kerosine a year quite a few inches upwards. It is called a wick.

[jacquesm]

> Capillary action moves several hundred tons of kerosine a year quite a few inches upwards. It is called a wick.

Sorry, but no. Capillary action is what moves the first bit of fuel to the tip (surface tension again), the rest is moved by evaporation because or (assuming you've lit the thing) by burning it off at the tip of the wick.

For a really earie thing, same kind of example though liquid helium '2' has such a high surface tension that if you put it in a beaker it will slop out and over the top of the beaker until it is only a few molecules thick. That happens at pretty low temperatures though, not likely to happen in your home.

[JW]

What works for me when dealing with such theorys is this, is to classify it this way.

 Over-Unity and perpetual motion = a selfsustianing reaction.

 This is a quote from a book thats out of print.

"Energy is convertible from one form to another- in some cases with ease, as in the pendulum which interchanges potential and kintic energy during its cyclical swinging. In other situations, man-made energy conversion devices are required. In an electrical generating station, for example, the chemical energy of coal or oil is released by combustion as heat to raise steam, converted into rotary energy in a turbine, then again converted into electrical energy in an electromagnetic generator.

 Such conversions are never fully effective. For example, in a power station only about 40% of the latent energy of the fuel is converted into electricity. But if the energy 'lost' -which eventually becomes low grade heat- is accounted for in the energy balence-sheet, the total quantity of energy sums to the same amount on both sides. This is the statement of the principle of energy conservation."

JW

[RobD]

Maybe you should look at the title of your post again because it seems like you're contradicting yourself.

[JW]

huh? RobD could you please clarify how your comment #26, me contradicting myself. I am not Oilburner. this is not my posting, I have only commented.

----JW

[TomW]

JW;

I think that the way you display messages is whats confusing you.

Try "nested" then replies show bundled with the original comment. Its a little pulldown at the bottom of the page.

T

[JW]

Thanks for the tip Tom,

 I will always check to see that thats set to 'nested" I see what you mean by the replys coming down out of sequence, like the 30th comment could be in order behind comment#5 (this is a hypothetical example). If its not set to nested to veiw the order could be different.

[Oilburner]

"So, can we have a new name for MOVING energy to a place where you need it (heating) or moving it away (cooling) using little or no "power" that does not scare away the under or over unity people?"

Well after all that we don't have a new definition or a benchmark we can all refer to.

I will continue working on systems that put out a much greater amount of heat than the electricity I use would seem to justify. It isn't magical, it is just a more efficient way of using resources.

Of course when I win the lottery efficiency does not count so I will join the herd and buy a propane heater.

 

[jacquesm]

energy transfer, heat pipes, heat pumps

Those are the 'accepted' names

[RobD]

Not you JW, Oilburner.

Sorry for the confusion.

Rob