Over unity ? C.O.P. Efficiency.

[Farmhand]

In my opinion the two words over and unity merged to one is not even English
language. When we look at the meaning of the two words they just mean over one.

Over one what ? If it's used to describe over 1 times the input in output when
talking of a device then it is just another way of stating the coefficient of
performance or C.O.P.. With a bit more flair.

In my opinion most people use it that way but some say it is somehow
different to C.O.P.. Because I'm sure most would agree that saying we can
create energy from nothing is pretty much like saying that we can increase
the mass of an object without adding anything. Or create matter from nothing.

If C.O.P. is a measure of usable output compared to user or mans input then
the C.O.P. of a solar panel is unbelievably high, or would it be that it is incalculable
being there is no user input at all. The energy it harnesses originates directly
from not even on this planet the sun "Sol". So where is the boundary for an
Earthly system ?

C.O.P. values of over one are easy to find. So what is so special about it ?

Coefficient of performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honestly I don't see any justification for such common use of the term OU or
"overunity" and for a solid state system to beat the in/out capabilities of a
solar panel or wind turbine would be very difficult.

In my opinion we should all be making a concious effort to discontinue using
the term OU or overunity as one word, the two words over unity describe
simply a C.O.P. of more than 1 in my opinion.

So if a solar panel is not OU then anything less than better performance than
a humble solar panel is not OU either, Solar panel has zero user input and the
output can be scaled up. Edit: (corrected last sentence to "user input" from
just input.)

Feel free to blast away. That's how I'm seeing it, my solar panels require no
input.

Cheers

[blackchisel97]

IMO, such term as OU is inappropriate, since it suggest that there is more coming out the system than enters. Doesn't make sense.
In other hand, COP tells us the ratio between paid input and total output. In such case even COP=infinity is possible.

V

[RAMSET]

Its all about the harvest

Farmhand
being a simple man ,i think in simple terms .
I look at solar the same way I look at water and wind power.

Its that other thing ..a very special event that we all seek,the allusive anomaly that appears to be magical [but isn't].

To me Ou is all semantics.....
When two men stand in a field and call the power to them[Tesla Quote],that will be a very nice day!

Another thing I realized lately ..The Power that was working in Tesla
Still works amongst us...I thought we had all missed something as a society.

It is just really beginning .

Thx
Chet

[mbrownn]

I agree overunity is an overused word as is the term free energy, to most they are exactly the same thing and the vast majority of people do not even understand COP, except on this forum . Its a bit like the terms ZPE, radiant and negative energy.

I know you have tried to clear up the problem in one of your threads but alas I still tend to slip into using these terms assuming people know what I mean without defining them first

[Slider2732]

Being somewhat fresher to this sort of forum than those with many years experience, I walk around with an ever keen eye on phrasiology.
Overunity should mean, to a layman, something above unity, above equating to 1:1
Farmhand, perhaps your statement of "Over one what?", is heard by many as "Over one watt" !
Any device, electronic, wooden, water, whatever that truly operates to give more output than input is 'OU'.
In that light, solar panels are OU by a huge factor...everything out is more than the traditional energies going in.
Apparently, however, systems that use natural phenomena don't count. Only wires and batteries and magnets and the breaking of human decided 'laws' count.

And, that I think is where it all falls down, in that scruffy term 'OU'.
We may have a large 12V solar panel, that sits in even ambient light producing enough to charge an AA battery to the top every day. Any extra could run into extra batteries, or capacitors, or more. That battery could run a little oscillator and light an LED for a month without the panel. Any sensible person can appreciate that decent sunlight of even one day worth would also charge that battery for a month of running the LED. Charging is guaranteed...at least one day a month would supply all the energy needs, besides the fact that the simple actual truth of the perpetuity of morning light would be enough to charge the battery.
It therefore is a perpetual circuit, only dependent on the battery chemicals one day fouling up...could be years.
Yet some clown would decide that because it wouldn't work up at the North Pole all year around that it isn't OU

[Aaron]

overunity is an oxymoron

Overunity is an oxymoron.

But it is understood what is meant by it and so its usage has persisted to really mean over 1.0 COP, more out than we put in - not more out than total input goes in.

[dragon]

I believe overunity is a term used when one doesn't understand where the excess energy is coming from. Such that it would "appear" to be producing an output in excess of it's input. I believe there are many ways to use the same energy more efficiently and in a way that it is recycled - similar to that of a tank circuit, a positive feedback or possibly an external source or signal.

The job of the experimenter is three-fold... one is to find a source, then to understand it, and finally design a device to tap it. Or we can play lucky lucy and build a multitude of coil/circuit combinations then hope we accidentally discover a source.

[MonsieurM]

The job of the experimenter is three-fold... one is to find a source, then to understand it, and finally design a device to tap it. Or we can play lucky lucy and build a multitude of coil/circuit combinations then hope we accidentally discover a source.

also called: Serendipity

Serendipity means a "happy accident" or "pleasant surprise"; specifically, the accident of finding something good or useful without looking for it. The word has been voted one of the ten English words hardest to translate in June 2004 by a British translation company.[1] However, due to its sociological use, the word has been exported into many other languages.[2] Julius H. Comroe once described serendipity as : to look for a needle in a haystack and get out of it with the farmer's daughter

it played a great role in many of the great scientific discoveries , but yes one has to understand and learn how to tap the source...and "luck" has a role too in it

[kcarring]

Imho

I think every argument in this thread has validity, and most would agree COP > 1 is the chief goal. After my short quest just under 2 yrs my personal recognition is of what I will call (for myself anyway) a fact: If you don't get much, it isn't worth much, and if it isn't economically scalable, it's worth even less. Without a simple comparison to available means, i.e. wind and solar... the rather trivial and novel approaches quickly fall down, which includes everything I have thus seen, so far. They say it takes about 6 kilowatts to run a home, I have personally lived off of 500 watts for over one year. That provides only the basic, pumping water and providing light. Without that (at least in the forests of BC living in a yurt, anyway) you are deemed "powerless"; which in itself, isn't the end of the world; you'll still survive. Just not comfortably, is all.

Any technology that cannot produce the said amount of energy, i.e. 500 watt hours of usable power per day, falls short. If it cannot be scaled up from there; then additional economical energy sources must be added; the said technology has done what it can, and cannot be (sensibly) exploited further.

I quickly learned that while living here (scroll to bottom for pictures).

IMHO, overunity, COP, it doesn't matter. What matters, is, does it clearly produce. In a true need situation, a small gain for a large input doesn't work, you simply do not have a large input to begin with.

So whether OU, or COP... it really makes no difference. All that matters is the noticeable benefit, something that is hard to appreciate, until all normal means are removed from ones environment; where it all becomes crystal clear.

You can convert an exercise bicycle to produce X number of watts per hour. If your life provides enough sustenance to have the energy to sit on it and produce power, you'll have lights, and you have time to operate a pump.

The sooner people realize that scale and output per $ cost of build - are the true measures of energy systems, the better, because we may not always have all that we take for granted, today. No amount of expensive hard to devise gadgets that provide COP = 1.X will be of any use in that sort of realm. Their trivial and novel performance, will, in essence be reduced to just that.

[Farmhand]

The Truth of Unity

Many definitions for "Unity".

Unity - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

In one way Unity cannot be exceeded, ie, if we were using solar panels the
rated efficiency is only less than 20% because "from what is thought" only less
than 20% of the energy that is delivered by the Sun to the area of the panel
is converted to electricity. But it is all free. If the panel was 100% efficient
that would be good. But it cannot be more than 100% efficient which is Unity.

If a mysterious source of energy was powering a machine for free it would still
only be like the solar panel, just that the source of energy is not known or
understood. Conceivably a zero point energy device would have an efficiency
rating of the efficiency which it converted the energy of the
quantum fluctuations or "whatever" to usable energy.

It's the same with a transformer the ideal would be 100% efficiency of "transformation".

If some device catches some energy from another place but wastes 20% of
it's input from us as heat and is operating at 100% efficiency then the known
efficiency of the operator input to output is 80%, to work out the efficiency
of the machine for converting the other source of energy into our output we
would need to first know what it is and be able to determine the total amount
of that energy that is interacting with the machine for free. Just as in the
Sunshine hitting the panel, it's just that we know where the Solar energy is coming from.

However if we are counting it is easy to go over unity by just saying two.
I'm not trying to be sarcastic either.

Cheers

[Aaron]

COP is not Efficiency

Overunity is an incorrect term to begin with to describe over 1.0 cop devices. But since it is known what is meant, it is commonly used.

A bouncing ball or refrigerator are both over 1.0 COP but all these over 1.0 COP devices are all 100% efficient or less - they cannot be over 100% efficient.

This distinction has been pointed out across this forum countless times.

This is the whole point in having a difference between COP and Efficiency.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi kcarring, thanks for sharing your information.
And that realm you speak of, could it possibly be the one we have today, with the would be dominators and the resultant mass of competitors that the dominators divisionary principles cause, I will guess that is the realm you speak of.
You should know kcarring, that is not the only type of realm that exists in this universe.
In fact, this realm could change at any moment, into one of harmony and unity, without dominators, leaders or competition of any kind.
Unless one considers the cooperation of making the human life better, more beautiful and all being self empowered a competition, then lets bring it on.
peace love light
tyson

[ChrisW]

Couldn't resist...

Greetings all

I was briefly torn as to whether or not I should post my $.02 on this topic, but when I read Tyson's post, I could no longer resist.

Farmhand, I have to agree with Aaron on this one. Yeah, I agree that the term OU is kinda silly from a technical perspective, perhaps even a linguistic perspective. But then again, I see people using phrases like "rather THEN" and "a event" (hell, I've even witnessed young TV news reporters using grammar like this) and I just throw my hands in the air in complete surrender.

As for Tyson's post, he's absolutely right. I, for one, am tired of fighting. I've come to realize that the tail end of the movie "War Games" (Matthew Broderick, Ally Sheedy, ca 1980) had it absolutely right: "The only winning move is not to play [the game]." Imagine the faces of the international banksters and politicians if we were to collectively give them the one fingered salute and say "(bleep) you, we're not playing your game any more. Take your phony, fiat currency and shove it. What's that? You're offering us a gold-backed global currency? No thanks, we'll pass."

Seems to me that every "statute" on the books could be replaced by one LAW: "Do no harm." Combine that with the concept of "improve reality by your presence in it." I think that'd be a great place to start. The bottom line is, it's all about self-responsibility -- willingly accepting the responsibility for your every thought and every action, and not abdicating or assigning those responsibilities to a third party ("representative"). That's how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place.

Okay, 'nuff said. Rant complete. Over and out.
Chris

[Farmhand]

My last post was about Unity or over unity and efficiency. I did not mention C.O.P. in that post.

Any reply to my last post and referring to C.O.P. has nothing to do with me.
I know C.O.P. is not efficiency.

Many people use the words over unity not to describe C.O.P but to describe a
system that produces an output with NO "user" input energy. In that case
there is no C.O.P. because there is no user input, and so the calculation
cannot be done.

My last post was about efficiency. It can concern a system with some user
input or a system with no user input. If a C.O.P. can be applied to a system
with no input then how is the C.O.P. of a solar panel calculated ? One can
hardly divide the output zero times. Believe it or not a number
cannot be divided by zero, because for a division to occur there must be
1 or more to divide it by. People can try to do the calculation by saying the
output divided by nothing equals the output, but the output divided by one
also equals the output, so doing so is pointless. Dividing a number zero times
means to not divide it to begin with, so the calculation never gets done.

A solar panel does not have a C.O.P. because we input no energy/power to it.

I just posted my opinion is all, it was not in reply to anyone, I'm not arguing
with anyone, just stating my opinions on it.

Cheers

P.S. Aaron, i'm trying to understand your claim that a bouncing ball is over
C.O.P. 1. My understanding is that C.O.P. is a measure of useful/intended
output divided by the user input. What do you define as the "output" of a
bouncing ball ? C.O.P calculation (going by the Wiki) is for heat pumps.
Should we really use it to describe other systems ? I think the ball is like a LC
tank and if energy was taken out as output things would look different.
Can we extract any energy from the ball to do useful work ? And if so will the
ball still bounce the same number of times and to the same height ? If the
intended useful output is seeing the ball bounce to an accumulative height
then yes it would be over one. In my opinion that is not useful and does not
qualify as output, (work output) or whatever. Just my opinion.

..