What exactly is "over unity" ?

[Robinhood46]

Over unity is PM but PM isn't necessarily over unity.
In a theoretical world of no resistance whatsoever, once a wheel is rotating it would be PM. No energy is created or lost.
In the same theoretical world, over unity is not possible, because over unity is the creation of energy and not simply the perpetuation of movement.

[Georg Künstler]

by vlmmoa55 » Sat Oct 30, 2021 9:52 pm
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!

thats the reason why I created a walker mechanism.
In a rotating frame you cannot stand, because always someone is pulling the carpet.
A Bessler Wheel is a rotating frame, and when it will rotate you cannot stand in it anymore, you will fall over.
The wheel creates the unbalance.

The energy is coming from the gravity force itself.
1.We use the gravity force to accelerate the mass downwards and sidewards in one go.
2.Then this mass is lifted upwards with a flash, which will result in a downforce and turn the wheel.
A redirection of the movment.
3.Gravity has to acceleate this mass again.

[WaltzCee]

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.

Often times a discipline borrows/uses terms from some other discipline. Happens frequently.

If this definition posted by Fletcher

an overunity system or device is able get more energy out, than what the OPERATOR inputs, once the system has been built.

is used then the CoP will approach infinity but never reach it.

The condition of getting more energy out than put in is met.

[eccentrically1]

. .. .. .

"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?

Betz's law, similar to the Carnot cycle, limits turbines to 16/27 (59.3%) KE capture.

Modern large wind turbines achieve peak values for Cp in the range of 0.45 to 0.50, about 75–85% of the theoretically possible maximum.

I'm not familiar with that definition for over unity. Where is it found?

[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.

Often times a discipline borrows/uses terms from some other discipline. Happens frequently.

If this definition posted by Fletcher

an overunity system or device is able get more energy out, than what the OPERATOR inputs, once the system has been built.

is used then the CoP will approach infinity but never reach it.

The condition of getting more energy out than put in is met.

Then all heat pumps, refrigerators and air conditioners are over unity because their cop is >1? That's fine with me as long as we all stay on the same page when we switch disciplines around.

[eccentrically1]

According to wiktionary "over-unity" was coined "to avoid patent rules that prevent impossible technologies such as perpetual motion machines being patented."

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
I'm not familiar with that definition for over unity. Where is it found?

https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary. ... erformance

That's fine with me as long as we all stay on the same page when we switch disciplines around.

human nature looks for patterns to confirm their biases.

The pattern I see is lunatic PM deniers control language/meanings to make it seem as if we're the lunatics. This has to end.

According to wiktionary "over-unity" was coined "to avoid patent rules that prevent impossible technologies such as perpetual motion machines being patented."

case in point.

[vlmmoa55]

that's what I was saying in another place.
even if someone succeeds in making a functional perpetual motion and manages to lift weights, it will not be in any case, "over-unity". there is a force in input that we exploit, in output this force will be less important (which is logical) but a lot of people try to introduce this over-unity whereas it is completely false and it will always be. we do not reinvent physics.

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

[thx4]

that's what I was saying in another place.
even if someone succeeds in making a functional perpetual motion and manages to lift weights, it will not be in any case, "over-unity". there is a force in input that we exploit, in output this force will be less important (which is logical) but a lot of people try to introduce this over-unity whereas it is completely false and it will always be. we do not reinvent physics.

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

I think just the opposite and fortunately otherwise no PM.

According to my research and observations, a PM must draw a little more energy than necessary at each turn, which implies a self-acceleration, so provide a load or a reducer, on a flywheel ... Where does the energy come from ? From the initial imbalance, which resets itself, a little faster and cheaper than expected.
Either gravity+kinetics... in the process of being assembled, and no patent planned. LOL

A++

[eccentrically1]

. .. .. .
I'm not familiar with that definition for over unity. Where is it found?

https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary. ... erformance

That's fine with me as long as we all stay on the same page when we switch disciplines around.

human nature looks for patterns to confirm their biases.

The pattern I see is lunatic PM deniers control language/meanings to make it seem as if we're the lunatics. This has to end.

According to wiktionary "over-unity" was coined "to avoid patent rules that prevent impossible technologies such as perpetual motion machines being patented."

case in point.

That's the normal definition of OU (for heat pumps, etc), I was looking for the one Fletcher quoted:

"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%."

I found this:

https://www.maui-solar.com/Overunity_Article.html

He says this is energy from the environment, but it's not "free energy". Right, it's limited by the usual suspects. Betz's law, Carnot cycle.
My peeve with his definition is the OPERATOR word, I think it would be better to say "an OU system or device has more energy out than what the SYSTEM or DEVICE inputs. Of course the operator doesn't have to input any energy to a windmill or waterwheel once it's built. The windmill or waterwheel is not inputting any energy either, so any energy out seems "free", so the CoP reflects that. The power formula for a waterwheel is complex:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_wheel#Efficiency

"Lunatic PM deniers" don't control the meaning of anything; the burden of proof is on the believers. You can invent a new word if you want to, but new words like over-unity don't change physical circumstances of PM.

[Georg Künstler]

"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%."

When the operator gets more out than the input than he can use a match in the forest.
Also when the operator stands on an avalanche and it kicks off.
From where this additional energy is coming does not care.
The operator makes use of this energy source.
In the examples above there is a positive feedback loop which will only stop if the energy is used up.

In a Bessler wheel we have the force of gravity which will drive our device,
It will drive our device as long as gravity will exist.
The force of gravity will be transformed in energy when the objects are beginning to move.
The avalanche won't start alone, and it must be able to move.
So you have a special condition for the start of the positive feedback loop.
w = F*s F=a*m so in our special case we have w=g*m*s

[thx4]

In a Bessler wheel we have the force of gravity that will drive our device

Great discovery, the troll persists, he has seen the wheel, and he is able to describe how it works, and on top of that to try to make us a grotesque calculation with variables coming out of nowhere.
He hasn't driven a nail in ten years, I don't think he ever did, but he knows.... I summarize "prout"...

A++

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .

"Lunatic PM deniers" don't control the meaning of anything; the burden of proof is on the believers. You can invent a new word if you want to, but new words like over-unity don't change physical circumstances of PM.

I think they do.

Consider the term perpetual motion. Since this gagle of inbred <the list goes on> "know" the universe will end, then nothing bounded by the universe can be perpetual.

Hence, no PM. Ta dah. It's magic.

• Those that control the terms control the course of a discussion.

That's why I nit pick about some terms. I believe they need to be clarified.

[Robinhood46]

Anyone with more brain cells than teeth, involved in Bessler's demonstrations at the time , knew damn well that his wheel would not rotate until the end of eternity. Some of the people involved had more brain cells than all the players on a football field, including the referee and the linesmen. The question of will it turn forever or will it not turn forever, wasn't even considered. The answer was, and still is, obvious, it will not.
Bessler's wheel is considered, or questioned, as perpetual motion, because it was powered by it's own steam. It needed no addition of any kind to continue rotating.
Over unity is also valid when speaking of his wheel. You put 0 (zero) in, and get more than 0 out.
These only apply if we focalise at the scale of the wheel. At the scale of the universe, the wheel doesn't run on it's own steam, because gravity is powering it, which is external to the wheel. There isn't over unity either, because the energy coming out of the wheel is equal, or less than, the energy going in from gravity. You can't get the wheel to give out any more energy than gravity is putting in it, no over unity.

[eccentrically1]

We can define overunity however we want, in defiance or ignorance. it won’t change the universe.