What Exactly is Overunity? (An explanation for skeptics)
Submitted by GaleRazorwind on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 02:21From time to time, I bring up the subject of so-called "Overunity" devices. I generally explain what that means in the post, but I still get people bashing me who either didn't read my explanation or didn't get the point. That is why I have decided to make this post. I intend to drill this into the minds of those who don't yet understand, in the hope that I can enlighten them (and anyone else interested in the topic).
Now, please repeat after me:
Overunity is NOT talking about efficiency.
Overunity is NOT talking about efficiency.
Overunity is NOT talking about efficiency!
...and Overunity is especially NOT talking about an efficiency greater than 100%.
If you even TRY to suggest that Overunity is talking about efficiency, let alone an efficiency greater than 100%, you are WRONG(!) and all you are doing is muddying the waters with nonsense and lies.
If we were simply talking about the efficiency of a system, we could never ever go above 100% because, by its very definition, efficiency takes into consideration ALL of the energy input into the system from all sources and devides it into the amount of work done by the system.
We will NEVER output more work than we put energy into a system. Fortunately for us, we really don't care what the efficiency of our system is while talking about overunity because efficiency has NOTHING to do with it! Remember, now, that Overunity is NOT talking about efficiency.
So, if we aren't talking about the efficiency of the system, then what the heck are we talking about? When discussing Overunity, we are ONLY interested in the system's Coefficient of Performance (COP).
Before I continue, please repeat after me:
COP is NOT efficiency.
COP is NOT efficiency.
COP is NOT efficiency!!
If you even TRY to claim that COP is the same thing as efficiency, you are WRONG(!) and all you are doing is muddying the waters with nonsense and lies.
As everyone should know, efficiency is the work done by a system divided by the sum total of all the energy being put into the system (E=W/E). Thus, efficiency produces a number between 0 and 1, which is normally expressed as a percentage.
What most people haven't seemed to learn yet is what coefficient of performance is. COP is defined as the work done by a system divided by ONLY the energy the OPERATOR must input to keep the system running (COP=W/Eoperator). Thus, COP produces a number between 0 and infinity.
Repitition time:
COP ONLY cares about the energy the OPERATOR has to input to make the system work.
COP ONLY cares about the energy the OPERATOR has to input to make the system work.
COP ONLY cares about the energy the OPERATOR has to input to make the system work.
If you even TRY to suggest that COP takes anything other than the energy the operator has to input into consideration, you are WRONG(!) and all you are doing is muddying the waters with nonsense and lies.
So, at this point, I'm sure some people are scratching their heads about what "the energy the operator has to input" means. I think that point may be what is confusing some people. In some systems, the only energy input is what the operator inputs.
For instance, a battery-powered wireless mouse. You, the operator, are inputting all of the energy in the system via the batteries. You have to provide all of the system's power to make it work. Therefore, its COP is going to be less than 1.0.
However, with some systems, the local environment also puts energy into the system in addition the the power the operator must put in.
For instance, a heat sink. You, the operator, must provide electricity to the system to make it run. At the same time, the local environment pumps heat(energy) into the system. In this case, you get a COP>=3.0 or so. The total work you are getting out of the system is greater than the energy of the electricity you provided because the environment is providing additional energy. If you wanted to calculate its efficiency instead of its COP, you would be considering both the electrical energy you put into the system in addition to the energy the environment provided to the system. Viewed as such, you would obviously end up with a number lower than 1 because we are now looking at all of the energy instead of just the energy you input.
Now, what happens if the environment inputs ALL of the energy needed to run the system?
If the environment inputs ALL of the energy needed to make a system work (e.g. a windmill or a water wheel), the system has a COP of infinity. Why? Because the operator doesn't put ANY energy into the system to make it work, thus its COP = W/0, which is infinity. The efficiency of the system may be crap, but we don't care about that.
Because we are discussing COP and only care about the energy the operator put in, simply look at each source of energy being input into the system and ask yourself, is this the environment providing the energy to the system, or is this the operator providing the energy? If the environment is found to be a source of energy to the system, you gain the potential to have a COP>1 system, and anytime the environment provides all the energy, you have a COP=infinity.
Now that we have covered all of these topics of confusion, we can finally answer the question, "What exactly is Overunity?"
Now, repeat after me:
Overunity refers to a system with a COP>1.
Overunity refers to a system with a COP>1.
Overunity refers to a system with a COP>1.
If you even TRY to suggest that Overunity refers to anything other than a COP>1 system, then you are WRONG(!) and all you are doing is muddying the waters with nonsense and lies.
Let's put it all together now:
Overunity is not talking about efficiency, and especially not an efficiency greater than 100%. Overunity refers to a system with a COP>1. COP is not the same thing as efficiency because efficiency takes into consideration all of the energy input into a system while COP only takes into consideration the energy input by the operator and not energy input by the environment. Therefore, in a system where some or all of the energy is provided by the environment, it is entirely possible for the COP of the system to be greater than 1, even though its efficiency will always be less than 100%, and it in no way, shape, or form, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And there you have it, folks. This isn't magic. This doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is a completely real and normal and common occurance in every day life.
I'm going to provide a link to this thread in all of my future posts on this subject, so there should be no excuses for comments like, "There's no such thing as overunity because you can't have an efficiency greater than 100%,"
P.S. I invite any former naysayers to post in this thread if they now understand what Overunity actually is and what it is not.
















First off
I absolutely abhor repetition. Especially repetition of repeated statements.
Secondly, perpetual motion derives from the context of the lifetime expected of the system. If you put some magnets magically in one of those knocker devices (You know, they have the five large steel balls hanging from two strings each) so that it is in fact now a perpetual motion machine, you still couldn't technically call it so because some day the strings will break. I'm relatively sure that if you did accomplish this and had it running for days/years, etc. then most scientists would even call it perpetual motion. Similarly, the planets orbit is perpetual motion in the context of our lives and even all of humanity's existence. Therefore, spinning a top would be perpetual motion in the context of a couple seconds.
Also, with number two in mind, outside energy can't be counted in your COP formula. Only ouside work. Magnetism isn't energy, therefore magnetic motors may only be redirecting some other work input in such a way to harness that. This is why most over unity devices fail to get patents or other recognition. They falsely claim to be harnessing the power of magnets (or even of the ether floating around us) to create their excesses. Many zero point energy system even do this with whatever they deem relevant that contains energy. They fail to see that energy only has the potential to do work and can only do so if acted upon or self diminishing in some way.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, all I see is that you're moving the mouse which is lighting up and sending a carrier to the USB receiver and on to the computer to move the pointer. If you're only moving it horizontal at a steady speed, no work should be being done but if you moved it up the screen (assuming, of course that your monitor screen was vertical), then you would have to compare the friction and inertia of your mouse to the weight and gain in potential energy of the pointer. My guess is that since this equation is independent of how large you make your cursor (elephant theme anyone???), it's nearly a COP of infinity.
words
"Capitalism" was Marx's epithet for "free markets".
"Liberals" used to mean "libertarians", but the gigantic group strayed past their ideal boundaries.
"Nice" has an interesting etymology.
Instead of the similarly muddied term "overunity", I'd rather use the "open system" to describe systems that "attach themselves to the wheelwork of nature" as one smart guy put it.
"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it."
Wikipedia...
redirects "overunity" to "perpetual motion machine".
:p
.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
There is no such thing
as a "perpetual motion machine", at least not under the usual definition of a machine that constantly outputs more energy than it takes in and runs forever.
However, to deny perpetual motion itself is to deny Newton's 1st law of motion. An object in motion tends to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
If you took a can out to deep space and threw it in a direction away from all other mass, it would continue moving forever in that direction. Therefore, it is perpetually moving.