What exactly is "over unity" ?

[nicbordeaux]

Hi all,
I've been away from this forum and more generally from PM for some years. There is still a probably badly failed build banging aound in the attic. It might make a nice random ham slicer.

My main issue is defining OU. It isn't as simple as a wheel with a overbalance weight starting revolving at 12, and revolving through to 12 with zero energy input other than gravity. Sure, that is OU in the simplest of terms, and thus PM becaause you have a reset to identical start conditions.

Let's say you optimize the bearings , spoke tensionon, or weight distribution on a solid disk. It's going to do 12 to 10:30 . That's 45 degrees short of a full turn..

If you have some arrangement where weights move about (or any other magic) and your end result, loss and gain of components' total mgh and tension accounted for, is consistenly better than that 10:30 equivalent, that must be OU, surely. Not PM by any means, but a démonstration of an "energy gain" .

[WaltzCee]

Hello Nic

Overunity implies creation.

One puts 1 in and gets 2 out.

More than 100% or over one or unity.

I SIM'ed a pendulum driving a rotation yesterday. The theories abound yet an actual real life model is a unicorn.

[vlmmoa55]

normally, it is possible to make a complete turn. and it is not because the wheel would be able to make a complete turn and even to provide energy in addition that there is "over-unity". there is much confusion. the over-unity in mechanics does not exist, at least, not to my knowledge.

[Fletcher]

Hi Nic ..

I googled "overunity coefficient of performance"

This comes up first on page.

"Now let's define “Overunity”: ... So, an overunity system or device is able get more energy out, than what the OPERATOR inputs, once the system has been built. In other words, it has a Coefficient of Performance (COP) greater than 1, also expressed as 100%."

Over at overunity.com they like to use the term COP>1 quite a lot. Also "overunity". We tend to stick with "runner" or PM because most of us understand the context and the limitations i.e. perhaps we are less pedantic. And it takes less space. No lesser a problem to solve however. They all mean the same thing in terms of known energy input to output, imo.

[agor95]

Could we have an abbreviation for 'No it will not work' and 'Where is the energy coming from'.

P.S. We could do a reversal where 'Runner' and 'None Runner' take the other meaning. It will cheer some folk up and get more viewers for a while.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .

"Now let's define “Overunity”: ... So, an overunity system or device is able get more energy out, than what the OPERATOR inputs, once the system has been built. In other words, it has a Coefficient of Performance (COP) greater than 1, also expressed as 100%."

. .. .. .

What would be the CoP of a wind mill?

[eccentrically1]

Coefficient of performance is a ratio for heat pumps, refrigerators and air conditioners.
So it can be greater than 1; I don’t think it is applicable to overunity or PM.

[MrTim]

I'd never use the term "overunity"; I don't want to be associated with that crowd... ;-)

[agor95]

We can all agree with your wish. But we should go to far or we will be accused of over unity.

P.S. Like the quotes.

Regards

[nicbordeaux]

How about DO as in "Dream on" ?"

Could we have an abbreviation for 'No it will not work' and 'Where is the energy coming from'.

P.S. We could do a reversal where 'Runner' and 'None Runner' take the other meaning. It will cheer some folk up and get more viewers for a while.

[nicbordeaux]

Hi, agreed 100 %. It's the unexplicably efficient I'm thinking about. At simplest, an Atwoods with 100 gramme weights either side of the string. You stumble on some voodoo part, a cam or whatever, and adding 1 gram to one side sends the 100 + 1 gram side travelling down at a greater speed than the machine allows for according to known and accepted laws of mechanics. The 101 g hits a plate of highly elastic material, and bouces back up to an iota of where it started from. Your efficiency is 99 % . Normal efficiency of the device being say 80 % . This is purely hypothetical, I have no such device. Still, in this scenario, you have 19% more energy than is possible. You haven't reached the 100% necessary for a reset to initial heights and positions, which would mean PM because the 101 g would descend again, same result. This is very far fetched, my point is just that anything over standard very best performance is an unexplainable gain. Therefore worthy of note, and a goal in itself.Hope that isn't too confused sounding :-)

Hi Nic ..

I googled "overunity coefficient of performance"

This comes up first on page.

"Now let's define “Overunity”: ... So, an overunity system or device is able get more energy out, than what the OPERATOR inputs, once the system has been built. In other words, it has a Coefficient of Performance (COP) greater than 1, also expressed as 100%."

Over at overunity.com they like to use the term COP>1 quite a lot. Also "overunity". We tend to stick with "runner" or PM because most of us understand the context and the limitations i.e. perhaps we are less pedantic. And it takes less space. No lesser a problem to solve however. They all mean the same thing in terms of known energy input to output, imo.

[WaltzCee]

Thank you for putting Fletcher back in the proper context, nic.

I didn't mean to attribute that quote to him yet I suppose this is an important topic with lots of questions.

[Leafy]

It is futile to find an energy source for Bessler's wheel.

It makes more sense to accept energy can comes from nothing and the 1st law of thermodynamics can be wrong.

The thing is energy can also be lost to nothing.

[nicbordeaux]

I did no such thing, it'sjust that I'm so bad at making points or questions concise and clear it takes several attempts. :-)

Thank you for putting Fletcher back in the proper context, nic.

I didn't mean to attribute that quote to him yet I suppose this is an important topic with lots of questions.

[vlmmoa55]

It is futile to find an energy source for Bessler's wheel.

It makes more sense to accept energy can comes from nothing and the 1st law of thermodynamics can be wrong.

The thing is energy can also be lost to nothing.

gravity is a force !

we could compare this force a bit like two magnets in opposition ( N and S ) ( attractive force ) or the wind ( N and N ) repulsive force ( wind turbine )

stop talking about energy or from nothing, it does not exist

I'll tell you how he did it "globally

all the millions of prototypes that don't work for 300 years and even in this forum.
it's all based on the same principle: a gross imbalance whatever the way you do it and place the masses whatever the angle or whatever. it will never work !!!! never !!!! never !!!

result: your imbalance turns into a balance .the wheel stops


Bessler did ..... the opposite. He created sets of equilibrium that he unbalanced and maintained this state constantly.

How do you walk? you are well in balance? if I cut a leg, you will fall (imbalance) and you will have a lot of trouble to get up and walk. a wheel is strictly the same! if you take away this balance, it will never work!

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)