Found a good "BBS Text" link? Let Us Know!

This paper is presented in an historical context and is indicative of the various rants, raves, treatises, etc., that were prevalent in the old BBS (Bulletin Board Service) days. Content has not been changed, though formatting changes may have taken place to make it more presentable. (Spelling, sentence/paragraph structure, etc.) Wherever possible, credit is given to the originating source.

 Return to BBS Text Files

From: josephnewman@earthlink.net (Evan Soule)
Subject: "Over-Unity": What is it?
Tue, 9 Apr 1996 01:49:47
Status: RO

Recently, I posted the following on several of forums:

I have a simple question for you --- and it's one involving "a matter of semantics" and/or a "paradigmological" question:

Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power station complex to be "an over-unity" operation? 
If yes, please explain or, if no, please explain.

My best,
Evan Soule

The following were several replies (some "yes" some "no"):

I would call no power station an over unity device, regardless of the 'fuel' or input energy it uses. Each of them is an energy converter.

This is quite clear for traditional power stations which make use of energy stored in mechanical movement (water, wind), chemical substances which can be transferred to other chemical substances in an exothermal reaction, in radiation energy (sun) or thermal energy reservoirs (geothermal energy). In converting energy, the amount of 'stored' energy will diminish. Thus, no 'over unity'.

In nuclear fission, you make use of the energy / matter equivalence stated by Einstein. You will actually lose mass in the process of energy conversion. Thus, no 'over unity', either. In this case, you have a nice difference between operating parts of the converter (i.e., the power station itself) and 'fuel' (e.g.. uranium or plutonium).

Dirk

That is a very good question! I guess you could say the answer is "Yes".

The problem is that they are highly regulated by the government (s), and I and other "garage experimenters" cannot just buy the materials at a hardware store or hobby shop and throw one together! They do produce more energy than is being put into them. The fuel is a nuclear reaction. The o/u/o devices some of us are playing with utilize the fabric of space-time, or zero-point energy, as a fuel source (if they do work), according to theory.

Zack

> Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power
> station complex to be "an over-unity" operation?

I often use just this issue to illustrate the ridiculous objections people have to "free energy" devices. I'd differentiate O/U versus non-O/U by whether mainstream science has accepted the explanation for the effect. A nuke plant is not O/U because the source of energy is "known," while the Newman Motor is O/U because mainstream researchers will tell you that nuclear energy can't be extracted from copper.

Here's another: The original discovery that Pitchblende ore would expose film was an example of an O/U effect. I believe that the original reports were even greeted by skepticism because continual emission of energy by a rock constitutes Perpetual Motion! But today we know that the Uranium in the ore is unstable and randomly transmutes to simpler elements, liberating energy in the process, so film-fogging is no longer "O/U".

Bill

-> Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power
-> station complex to be "an over-unity" operation?

I was wondering about this one as well. . .If it is, it's definitely not very safe!

Mark

>Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission
>reactor/power station complex to be "an over-unity" operation?

No. There is no 'excess' power production, and the energy output is far less than is extracted from the fuel in it's operation. The efficiency is well under 100%, so a nuclear plant in just a fancy water heater connected to a normal generator plant.

Over unity operation or efficiencies of over 100% are very special situations describing open systems such as a water wheel, but not the driving water fall itself. If the water fall and hydrologic cycle is included, then the water wheel is not over unity, nor does it have high efficiency.

Bob

>Would you consider a typical, conventional, nuclear fission reactor/power
>station complex to be "an over-unity" operation?
>If yes, please explain or, if no, please explain.

Well, I would say yes, because it puts out energy more than it is needed to dig out the Uranium and process it to run the power plant.

Stefan.

Mark's reply to Bob:

Could you describe the process of extracting the energy from the fuel to gain the necessary power production? And also, would you consider a nuclear/hydrogen bomb over-unity?

Mark

another reply of Bob to Mark:

Sure,

The energy liberated from the nuclear fuel was formerly binding energy in the nucleus of the fuel atoms. By splitting more fuel atoms with the byproducts of already split atoms, that is high speed neutrons, we can produce a chain reaction of atom splitting. In addition to the high speed neutrons, this splitting also releases heat energy. The neutrons keep the "fire" burning, while the heat energy is used to drive the generators.

If we do not control the rate of atom splitting, and have just enough fuel, we produce a huge pulse of energy from the mass lost in the splitting process and we have an atomic bomb. The energy released still comes from the fuel mass lost in the chain reaction. Hydrogen bombs work on a quite different process where atoms fuse together, and release energy in the process. 

In all these situations, the energy delivered is accounted for by the fuel mass, hence, this does not constitute over unity operation. No excess energy is produced. This does not imply that over unity operation is impossible. This is a matter of how we define what the system is made of. A water wheel turning under a waterfall shows over unity operation in that the wheel turns due to some external force. In this case, that force is the falling water.

In a larger context, the water flows over the wheel because water evaporates from the oceans, rain falls on the hills, and flows downhill due to gravity.

>From the point of view of our sun, the water wheel in not over unity, as the sun produces energy that evaporates the water, which the Earth's gravitational field then causes to fall and flow downhill. 

In reality, the sun and Earth's gravitational field cause the water wheel to turn, and in this context, the water wheel is no longer over unity. So you can see how we define what is and is not part of our system has a lot to do with claims of over unity operation.

Bob

another reply which responds to Mark which responds to Bob:

Mark,

The operant phrase is "over-unity" -- it's a sham phrase made-up by skeptics to obfuscate the issue of Newman's machine. As I understand the phrase's intended definition, only a true perpetual motion machine, i.e., a machine that runs without ever using energy, thereby putting out more energy than it inputs, so that e(out)/e(in)>1, that is, the ratio is "over-unity."

In short, the answer to your second question is "no." The combined heats of fission (to start the fusion process) and fusion release the energy of the hydrogen bomb. Considered as a fuel, these heats supply an energy (in) that equals the energy (out). The same is true for Newman's machine if his theory is accurate. Evidence points to its accuracy. One must be individually convinced. I spend no time trying to convince skeptics. Skeptics spend a lot of time trying to get others to convince them. That's perforce a waste of time both for the skeptic and for their selected victim.

I worked for 14 years at a Nuclear Power Station, called a Steam Electric Station, which should give you a big hint as to how the power is extracted from the nuclear fuel. There are two principal methods of extraction and thus two major types of nuclear power plants in the USA. These are called BWR and PWR. The Boiling Water Reactor style has only a primary steam loop. Water, under 2000 lbs of pressure is circulated in close contact with the fuel rods and is heated to about 500 degrees or so. The steam is directed against a turbine and moves the turbine which is connected to a generator.

The PWR has a primary steam loop which extracts heat from the fuel rods and a secondary steam loop which drives the turbine. The heat is transmitted from primary to secondary by a huge heat exchanger called a Steam Generator. Advantage of PWR is isolation of primary radioactivity from the turbine. I worked at PWR.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

R. Matherne

To everyone:

It would appear as though there is a difference of opinion on this question.

Evan Soule
email: josephnewman@earthlink.net
P.O. Box 57684, New Orleans, Louisiana 70157-7684

From josephnewman@earthlink.net Fri Apr 12 14:51:40 1996
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 1996 07:51:40 -0700
Subject: Re: "Over-Unity": What is it?
Status: RO

My contribution:

The definition of "over-unity" depends entirely on where you draw the circle around the device that you are considering. If the circle is small enough, the device is obviously and without question "over-unity", and energy may appear to not be conserved. Actually, it is. When you draw the circle large enough, then energy is seen to be obviously conserved.

A good example is that of putting new batteries into a flashlight. To someone in the 17th Century, this would be an "over-unity" device and a "perpetual motion" machine! Light comes from nothing!!! Energy from nothing!!! It lasts for days and days, etc.

By drawing the circle around the flashlight and the batteries, we see that energy is NOT conserved, and that the flashlight is a "free-energy" machine (just like a car) - until it runs down. Then it needs to be recharged. Ah hah!

Drawing a circle around the formation of the flashlight and of the batteries, we see that energy IS conserved, and that the potential energy generated by putting dissimilar metals together causes the voltage potential that creates the energy to power the light bulb. The whole process, is actually way "under-unity", as it takes energy to create the batteries and the flashlight. "God" or some other force was responsible for making those chemicals first.

The same argument applies to Hoover Dam, where we are obviously getting more energy out than any humans put in, due to the weather patterns and rain and snow filling Lake Mead. Draw a circle around the Dam itself, and you have a free-energy device and a perpetual motion machine. No question on that! Draw a circle around the Earth and Sun and you have conservation of energy. Where the energy of the Sun came from is quite another question...

There are LOTS of potential energy sources around here on the Earth's physical plane. The process occurring in "cold fusion" is the latest new one that is investigated right now. Let's uncover some other ones as well. 

Stop bickering about things and DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE! BE RESPONSIBLE! GOETH FOR IT!!!

Dr. Patrick Bailey
President, Institute for New Energy
www.padrak.com/ine/
April 1996.

 

Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 2006, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572