Stop that rubbish!  Of course overunity means a conversion device , there is no way to break physic law. If you can tap distant pulsar energy and got COP infinite it's still overunity, because it's better then underunity devices we use today. DO NOT DISREGARD OVERUNITY DEVICES. It's another method of supression.

Well I'm not disregarding over unity devices as such, Solar devices must be over unity just as much as any other device with more out than in then.

The beauty of unity is that nothing is ever really lost, energy is not destroyed.

I think 99% of us agree that we are looking for new sources of energy or new ways to harness energy from the environment with
the result of more energy out than we put in, or over 100% efficient by those terms.  If that is over unity then so is a solar system
a wind turbine, natural hydro power , atmospheric potential utilization devices, zero point energy and growing crops.

Can you give an example of how a truly closed system could increase it's potential energy ?

Life is based on collecting and harvesting from the environment, always has been.

Cheers

Don't complicate. Overunity is simply more then unity  , it's a very rough statement and trying to give it a detailed scientific reason is not appropriate. Device is overunity when producing more energy/power then then obvious input energy/power. In every case there is COP >1 also and of course hidden energy input and efficiency of conversion may be very low indeed.

A solar panel is a very inefficient energy conversion device, so by strict definition cannot be overunity. However, if it powers a device without any other source of non-environmental energy input such as from the grid or battery, as the sun's energy is not paid for by the user, the system is said to be running at COP infinity, although it is still way under unity. If the measured electrical output energy from the solar panel could in some way be amplified in a device, such that its output energy was more than the total system input energy, then the system would be running over unity. A COP infinity system is therefore not over unity.

Yes but how is the efficiency of a solar panel measured ?

What is the efficiency of the conversion of the light of the wavelength the panel is designed to harness?
I mean I don't think they are designed to harness the total bandwidth of the light that hit's them.
Do they only utilize 20% or so of the light of the wavelengths they are designed to use, from what hits the panel ?
Or is it 20 % of the total light energy that hit's the panel ?

Cheers

Solar panels efficiency ie the electrical output divided by the total incident energy from
 the sun that can reach 1000 to 1200 watts per square meter depending on the latitude,
 it could be 12% for monocrystalline and 15% for polycrystalline, it is clear that it is still
free energy except purchase costs and maintenance ..

Leo48

Free energy- yes but overunity- no. The term 'free energy' can reasonably be applied to any energy that can be collected by a system without the user having to pay for it directly. However, the energy collected by solar and wind devices is not strictly free as leo48 points out because of purchase and maintenance costs. As I see it, the main problem here is with definitions in that that some people incorrectly argue that a system running on free energy = overunity, simply because it is doing work that requires no input of conventional grid derived energy by the user.

 How about we get back to the task at hand instead of arguing over what OU is or even what free energy is. If the system outputs more energy then you have to use to get it ruining then who cares if it is OU or free energy.


 After researching more on the subject I have found a good patent to get the gist of a valid method to extract energy from a system, weather it be an open system or any other system.


 http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-patents-685,953-intensifying-transmitted-effects

 From what I am getting from this is that you can intensify any signal into a usable power by this method. What I have read is a step forward in getting any of these systems to work as long as there is a weak signal to use.
 The method is to take a high frequency signal and accumulate it in a high dielectric condenser and output it after it has a chance to gain in voltage. So lets say you have a 1 MHz signal you would let it accumulate until it's voltage is sufficient to power the load from the capacitor and not the signal directly. This is done via two antenna and stored in a high value capacitor then discharged into the load or as Tesla put it receiver. If that receiver was a transformer with a bifilar secondary then we should see plenty of power.

 In this system it doesn't matter where the signal comes from and how weak it is from what tesla talks about in the patent. It could be from a signal we provide or even from a natural source. It also doesn't matter what kind of energy it is. Well it does but it only matters to the translator we use. If it is an AC signal, AC impulse or even a uni pulse. The basic system is the same just the connects have to be different.

 It seems to me that what determines the current is actually a conversion of frequency and the size of the capacitor. The frequency lowering effect lets the capacitors charge to a higher value and then discharge with force into the receiver. What that receiver is, has to be researched. But I suggest two things must be improved. The capacitors need an upgrade. Maybe using the graphene form with a good oil dielectric would help and the cylendar he uses could be changed to transistors, tubes or even spark gap. The change of frequency needs to be 60 cycles for our devices so that should be very easy to do. It seems the capacity is the resultant power in this converter. 1 million impulses going into 60 should let that capacitor bank get a huge charge then discharge into a transformer to convert the impulses to an AC form.

 Maybe this is what TK is doing. He provides the signal via transistor and lets it build up in a capacitor via an inductive pickup. Then he discharges that capacitor via another transistor into a loading transformer and rectifies it for the inverter to self power the device and power a load from the same pre-inverter connection. The inverter might not be needed but for the input signal it makes it easier in the beginning.

Hello to all.

As we are suffering some really bad weather here at the moment, I decided to look at Zeitmaschine's Russian patent. 
http://bd.patent.su/2386000-2386999/pat/servl/servlet92b8.html
I have a problem that one of our electronics specialists may be able to help me? I am using SCR C106 DG. I am set up on a small bread board and have found that even a small touch with an isolated wire on the gate will trigger a latch. So I have wound some small Ferrite rings and grounded one leg, the other is on the gate. Now a small curent applied through a couple of turns will latch the pair of SCR's. But they do not respond to the polarity of the DC input pulse that is applied. This is unfortunate as the whole point of the exercise is to have alternate pair switching!!
I have tried steering Diodes to no avail. Has anyone any ideas?

Cheers Grum.

WOW I have lost my Newbie status 

As we are suffering some really bad weather here at the moment

If bad weather leads to free energy then it is worth the suffering.

I have tried steering Diodes to no avail. Has anyone any ideas?

Don't connect the gates of one SCR pair directly to each other. Use for each gate a separate Ferrite ring (or SCR Trigger Transformer). Or try it with two triacs instead of two SCR pairs.