Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

New theories about free energy systems => Understanding OverUnity => Topic started by: elecar on June 15, 2013, 01:42:50 PM

Title: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 15, 2013, 01:42:50 PM
Everyone who has an interest in OU and perpetual self running mechanisms will be aware of the differing views of those who believe it is possible and the largely scientific counter argument that it is not possible because of this law and that law, and thermodynamics blah, blah, blah.

To be fair to the scientific group, as of yet no one has shown any of the above can be achieved. But by way of a discussion, I want to introduce a “what if” and the ramifications of  such a device being presented that did show OU, self running or perpetual motion.

So to get the discussion started, someone creates a working SMOT, shows and proves it works. There is obviously still going to be conflicts of belief, but what would the ramifications of such a device be in the larger context. Rewriting the laws of physics ?

Discuss.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: forest on June 15, 2013, 02:38:04 PM
What you don't know and I can only guess is the nature governon to limit the energy from ambient pulled on the spot area. In other words I believe it can be done only in small quantities around the whole world , spread rather evenly.
Check the articles in Colorado Springs about strange phenomena from the period when Tesla operated his experiments there.

Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 15, 2013, 03:03:03 PM
Forget rewriting the laws of physics.... how about rewriting the "laws" of warfare?

If you think drones are bad now, how bad will they be when they never need to refuel or recharge their batteries? If you fear terrorists with bombs, how much more afraid should you be of terrorists with unlimited supplies of energy?

And so on. Any new invention is evaluated first and foremost for its utility as a weapon, or otherwise useful on the battlefield. It's in our nature as terrestrial primates. You pick up a rock, I pick up a branch. You attach your rock to a branch to make a club.... so I invent the spear. You then invent the bow and arrow. And so on, until we wind up here.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 15, 2013, 03:17:25 PM
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: forest on June 15, 2013, 05:57:38 PM
Working on it  ;D  There is no need to actually change any law - all laws of nature allow free energy continously, we just don't know yet how to tap more then a few percent (using solar and wind power) and I heard that high efficiency solar panels are supposedly supressed.... You must realize this : energy is continously flowing into Earth from cosmic sources, there is no other possibility to maintain steady rotation.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 15, 2013, 07:43:42 PM
Forest, using the SMOT example physics says it can not be done, thermodynamics and all that. It can not be that Physics law #2 would still stand if a SMOT was  (1) running itself (2) providing excess energy even if that energy was no more than lighting an LED.
Surely science could not have it both ways, either the SMOT is impossible or physics is wrong.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: forest on June 15, 2013, 09:03:29 PM
Forest, using the SMOT example physics says it can not be done, thermodynamics and all that. It can not be that Physics law #2 would still stand if a SMOT was  (1) running itself (2) providing excess energy even if that energy was no more than lighting an LED.
Surely science could not have it both ways, either the SMOT is impossible or physics is wrong.


elecar


Buy a small solar panel, connect led bulb to it and put it directly toward sunshine. Got it ? Impossible ? Any thermodynamics law is violated ? Physics is right, but scientists are mistaken as always.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 15, 2013, 09:23:06 PM
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.

No, I completely disagree.
All it would take is one genuine case of a properly performed experiment that reliably indicated an anomalous effect, even a tiny bit of OU or excess COP the way we define it here. One repeatable and consistent experiment or demonstration. Then "conventional" science and scientists would be all over it, trying to repeat it and explain it. You could not keep them away with fences! Graduate students are always looking for research projects and the more grad students there are the harder it is to find something actually new and relevant to research for their PhD dissertations, which are supposed to add to knowledge, not just repeat what's already known.
It doesn't matter whether this repeatable demonstration comes from a twelve year old autistic kid who doesn't even speak, or from someone like a Richard Feynman. Sure, if it came from Richard people might pay more attention to it _at first_, but no matter who or from where it comes, the important thing is repeatability and confirmation of claims. When those things are done, for real, then there is no problem from capital-S Science at all. Real scientists do change their minds when they are proven wrong! It happens all the time. It might not "go down well", as you say, and some scientists might never give up their opinions, but this is a matter of personality, not science itself. We've all seen cases where a FE device or theory is soundly disproven but the core group of believers hangs on and seems utterly impervious to reason. Some people still believe in MyLOW, ffs. Scientists, the people, are no different. Science, the discipline, though, is self-correcting and what we "know" is a broad consensus and is always being revised, updated, and yes even corrected.
"Show me the sausages". If your sausages are real, then no scientist will be able, reasonably, to dispute them. But the problem is that we haven't seen any real sausages. Some people, like me, might include the word "yet" at the end of that sentence, but the sausages that we might someday see will _not_ be violating any fundamental laws that we "know" to be true, like 2LoT, conservative gravity, and so on.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: forest on June 15, 2013, 09:35:53 PM
TinselKoala


Nice dreams, but look what happened to cold fusion....
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 15, 2013, 11:08:42 PM
TinselKoala


Nice dreams, but look what happened to cold fusion....

A perfect example of what I'm talking about. There are still many completely conventional and legitimate scientists trying to replicate the various CF/LENR claims that have been made. Major energy corporations have sponsored some of this research. The problem with CF/LENR is not with the scientists who are investigating it, but rather with the pseudoscientists who pretend to do research and report it, like the recent paper by Levi et al. reporting on a Rossi reactor demonstration. There are so  many holes in the presentations of the CF "believers" that it has not been accepted by "mainstream" science, and this is because of the shoddy work and inadequate reportage of the believers, not because the "mainstream" is closed to new ideas.
The reason that the Bell Labs reports of the invention of the transistor were believed and accepted is because the science was good and repeatable. And now look where the transistor has gone. The reason that the P&F reports were not believed and haven't been accepted is because the science was bad, the reported phenomena not repeatable. Not because science is closed to new ideas.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: MileHigh on June 15, 2013, 11:12:56 PM
Forest:

Quote
Working on it  There is no need to actually change any law - all laws of nature allow free energy continously, we just don't know yet how to tap more then a few percent (using solar and wind power) and I heard that high efficiency solar panels are supposedly supressed.... You must realize this : energy is continously flowing into Earth from cosmic sources, there is no other possibility to maintain steady rotation.

For what it's worth I am just going to address an issue or two because they pop up all the time on the forums.

The notion that energy is "continuously flowing into the Earth" to keep it spinning is wrong.  If you make anything spin while it is floating in the vacuum of outer space then it will spin forever.  It could be the Earth or a hockey puck, it doesn't matter.  There is no friction and there are no unbalanced forces acting on the spinning object so it will spin forever, no energy required.

In fact the Earth is slowing down and that's why we have leap seconds but I am ignoring that.  In fact space is not completely empty and I am also ignoring that.

The laws of Nature are all about unity.  They do not allow for "free energy continuously."  We are lucky in that we have the Sun providing us with energy.  But again I must stress that is not free energy.  It's just unity in action one more time.  The Sun is just a unity device that is burning fuel and it will eventually run out of fuel and die.

Quote
Our Sun creates E = 3.9E+26 joules of energy every second. To balance the books, every second the Sun destroys m = E/c^2 = 4.3E+9 kilograms of mass. This mass loss, equivalent to more than 4 million tons per second, is accomplished by fusing 600 million tons of hydrogen into 596 million tons of helium. Source(s): Experienced geologist.
 
 http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryd… (http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/%7Eryden/ast162_1/notes2.html)
 http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3… (http://www.astronomynotes.com/starsun/s3.htm)
 http://mb-soft.com/public2/sunworks.html (http://mb-soft.com/public2/sunworks.html)

The idea that higher efficiency solar panels are being suppressed is just another crazy conspiracy theory that you read somewhere.  The person that wrote that probably has ulterior motivations to create some fake buzz to get more web page hits or to sell something.  It's just the dark side of the human condition that is manipulating you for profit.  It's the Inverse-MIB in action.

Since I am here, I will address the good old "zero point energy" idea.  All of the leptons and anti-leptons jumping in and out of existence and the neutrino and anti-neutrino flux, bla bla bla.  I am no expert here, but that is like being in an isothermal bath of hot air.  Yes, there is heat energy in the air.  The problem is that the temperature is the same everywhere.  So you can't do anything with it, you are stuck in a heat fishbowl and unless something special comes along, there is nothing that you can do to take advantage of it.   So, 3D space may represent a type of energy density, but we can't do anything with it.   There is no magic solution for that with our current technology and there is the distinct possibility that we will never be able to harvest any of this "ambient background space energy" for lack of a better term.

Sterling's catch phrase whenever he writes up yet another improbable free energy proposition is that this new device "might be tapping into the clockwork of Nature."  Right now that's just a meaningless catch phrase.  I want to scream sometimes when he writes that.  Do you really think a $250 electric fan from some semi-creepy commune in Brazil is any better or more efficient than a $20 electric fan from Walmart?  Which fan do you think cost more energy to produce?

I hate to be so depressing, but I think that it's important sometimes to remind people of the context of our understanding of what the real world and the Universe is all about.  Sure let's be open to new ideas but at the same time let's not propagate false ideas like the Earth spins because it is being "powered from cosmic sources."  Some ideas are simply fundamentally wrong and we as human beings need to pull together sometimes and at least try to have agreement on some basic facts.

MileHigh
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: orbut 3000 on June 16, 2013, 02:47:56 AM
If scientists were only half as open-minded as the science-apologists claim, the much needed academic acceptance of mainstream overunity technologies like SMOT, Ainslie's MOSFET oven and overbalanced wheels would have enabled us to use those breakthrough technologies to smooth our SMOT's, heat our heatsinks, and overbalance our overbalanced wheels long ago.


But it is apparently so that science just can't jump over its own blinders and accept the reality of free energy.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: Low-Q on June 17, 2013, 09:20:49 PM
Hi TK, that is for a politics forum. I am putting out a "what if" with regard to OU.  I am guessing it would not go down well with any scientist as it would go against all the laws they so often quote.
What would make it even worse is if some uneducated, illiterate person was to prove it. Could you just imagine the fall out. All those years of college and uni, reciting verse and line about all those laws, only to find they did not hold up to something as simple as a SMOT.
The problem with a SMOT, even so simple they are, they works on basic physics. They cannot be looped in order to get a positive feedback that accelerate the cycling steel ball so excess energy can be taken out. A SMOT is a funny magnetic toy, but not much more than that.


Vidar
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 17, 2013, 11:47:46 PM
Hi, Low Q, the question was "what if"  The scenario is simple.

Someone creates a working SMOT, it is proven to work and lights an LED.

What are the ramifications for the science world ? do some laws of physics get re-written ?
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: DaS Energy on June 18, 2013, 06:40:16 PM
SMOT is the starter of overunity, however it not complete.  Just dropping the ball instead of leveraging it back down, ie wheel to its start point.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: Low-Q on June 18, 2013, 07:16:27 PM
Hi, Low Q, the question was "what if"  The scenario is simple.

Someone creates a working SMOT, it is proven to work and lights an LED.

What are the ramifications for the science world ? do some laws of physics get re-written ?
Ah, I see. It would be a bunch of pretty hysterical scientists out there if that was possible to make :-))


Vidar
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: DaS Energy on June 18, 2013, 07:43:12 PM
Hello Vidar,
Dont see any real problems. Ball rolls out of smot top into cradle on wheel, rolls out of cradle at bottom. Weight of the ball in place of water.
Peter 
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: Low-Q on June 19, 2013, 12:02:28 AM
Hello Vidar,
Dont see any real problems. Ball rolls out of smot top into cradle on wheel, rolls out of cradle at bottom. Weight of the ball in place of water.
Peter
The SMOT isn't the problem, but the person who views it. It is easy to wrongly imagine how things work if one doesn't fully understand all the mechanics involved - and spooky conclusions araise - even religious.

A SMOT is an arrangement of magnets which can lift a ball up a hill. The ball builds up momentum and escapes from the top. So far, no big discovery.
When the ball leaves the top, the ramp will still attract the ball for a moment, and slow down the balls acceleration during its drop.

So then the surprising part:
When the ball approaches the bottom of the ramp again, the magnets arrangement will cause the ball to be magnetized in such a way that it will repel the ramp (in front of the enterance). I have put out a video somwhere here that prooves that the ramp repels the ball before enterance. The sum of these forces (gravitationally and magnetically) will finally in sum give no net force at all - which is not that surprising. No force to spare, no energy to spare.

Vidar.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: DaS Energy on June 19, 2013, 12:18:05 AM
The SMOT isn't the problem, but the person who views it !
Even worse who not read before replying.
Peter
 
 
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: forest on June 19, 2013, 12:09:10 PM
What is SMOT ?  ???  I don't understand, I thought we are discussing any Ou device and consequences of public disclosure.
I'm fully aware that magnetic field is static but can add force to already acting one.  The momentum gain can be used to mechanically change the path of movement and thus a limitless move based on gravity and magnetism is possible.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 19, 2013, 02:14:26 PM
Hi Forest, the question can be applied to any OU device, SMOT was used to keep it simple.

Would the laws of physics need rewriting if someone developed a working (proven) SMOT ?
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on June 19, 2013, 04:07:05 PM
Hi Forest, the question can be applied to any OU device, SMOT was used to keep it simple.

Would the laws of physics need rewriting if someone developed a working (proven) SMOT ?

This is a silly question.  Of course they would.  Just like if a gravity wheel was to work, or a rubber ball bounced higher and higher each time.  Yes, if you find an example that violates the current laws of physics, laws of physics will need to be rewritten.  But good luck finding that example.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: TinselKoala on June 19, 2013, 05:31:32 PM
Or just due diligence :)

or maybe a tennis ball tube :) :)
Are you claiming here that you've found some new physics by your "due diligence" or your tennis ball tube contraption?

I say, prove it. You cannot.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: elecar on June 19, 2013, 09:30:05 PM
Hi Eatenbyagrue, I am sorry you find the question silly. But some claim a Smot actually breaks no laws and some claim it does.
I personally find it hard to believe that the laws would be rewritten, instead I think science would come up with a single exception to explain away a working SMOT.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on June 20, 2013, 12:52:42 PM
Hi Eatenbyagrue, I am sorry you find the question silly. But some claim a Smot actually breaks no laws and some claim it does.
I personally find it hard to believe that the laws would be rewritten, instead I think science would come up with a single exception to explain away a working SMOT.

I am confused.  What is this working SMOT you are talking about?  I have not seen one.
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: circle on June 23, 2013, 06:36:23 AM
the higgs boson is the most simple example of this
and as such it is the most definitive example of that this phenomenon is a reality
it is possible in macroscopic form to acheive a mechanical equivalent
comprehension is key
there are too many who are lost in the math
they are like chemists, able to show the properties of the cake but unable to concieve its of its taste 
 
"it is dark.. you are likely to be eaten by a grue"
Title: Re: What if ?
Post by: circle on June 25, 2013, 11:25:36 AM
the higgs boson is the most simple example of this
and as such it is the most definitive example of that this phenomenon is a reality
it is possible in macroscopic form to acheive a mechanical equivalent
comprehension is key
there are too many who are lost in the math
they are like chemists, able to show the properties of the cake but unable to concieve its of its taste 
 
"it is dark.. you are likely to be eaten by a grue"

the higgs, at rest, has a value not equal to zero
 
look at it in terms of potential and kinetic energy
 
when you understand what the relationships of the various fields (and their respective particles) are in terms of a geometrical model, you will be looking at some of the basic concepts of structure that apply to a successful method of exploiting the principal in a macroscopic system
(if correct, at that point, you will be almost as close to solution as i was before i understood the timing and positioning of the directional latches; i.e. the catching and releasing of one of the wieghts that momentairly pins their identities to labels such as "slave weight" and "torque weight" )
 
> verbose
> look