... I have a feeling that if the physics as we know it was not true, and over unity was possible, so would the physical laws been so different that we could never predict the trajectory of a rocket or a probe sent into space, and make it land within a precision of a few hundred meters on Mars. It would never been possible to predict the performance of a car engine at the lab, it would not be possible to find unknown places with GPS. Because if over unity existed there would not longer be a relation between time, energy, mass, and gravity.
Vidar
these assumptions you make here seem ridiculous. Simply because we do not fully understand every physical phenomena, or that our theories need to be adjusted, does not mean we have to throw away all the progress we have made towards what we think we know.
Our current model of physics relates equalities in the experiments we observe. Overunity, by definition, is an inequality. Therefore, it cannot be defined by any known equation.
Many people confuse what thermodynamic theory actually states, and what types of system analysis it actually Applies to.
We can't even close off a system, much less pretend that every conceivable system can be closed off from all outside energy transfer from
the surrounding environment, space or beyond.
That being said, there are systems that cannot even be defined by thermodynamic analysis. Gravity and magnetism being among the list.
What sayeth the laws of Thermodynamics about Boyle's Flask? Or a vintage 80's Coleman Cooler w/ a jet nozzle made to refill itself?
Take a nuclear reactor for instance, is the available energy simply a matter of E = mc^2?
We take exponentially more energy out of this reaction in the form of heat than can be accounted for by a loss in mass. The waste from the reactor is nearly the same mass as the fuel that was inserted into it. The reaction is defined clearly by elementary physics, however this system cannot be described by thermodynamic analysis. It is not an equality.
Much like Overunity, the mathematics of the chain-reaction of atomic radiation, as a function of radius, is an inequality.
like constructive interference in signal processing, coherent radiant convection with heat, simultaneously firing two coherent-phase lasers,
Tesla's Oscillators, or humming into a tin can tied to a string.....
There are electromagnetic inequalities defined by Maxwell, however we tend to ignore these things, because they do not fit into our currently accepted model.
The existence or possibility of a system you would call "overunity", or one in which the energies are not fully defined,
poses no threat to our current realm of knowledge.
All of our completely defined systems will not fail to operate, if we find a system that does not behave as expected.
That is just silly....
Our current model does a good job at defining systems we currently know and use.
We shouldn't expect airplanes to fall out of the sky, the moment Jimmy the inventor makes a wheel seem to turn itself.
however, we must also not forget a short time ago before the invention of aerodynamics.
There is still one major problem we have when it comes to magnetism.
There is a scale of events that occur in or around a magnetic field that are completely irrespective of TIME.
What exactly does that do to your "equations"?
oh,... we can ignore that right? because if we are observing it, it becomes relativistic.....
but what about from other perspectives? non-relativistic ones..... Where did the "T" go?
acceleration is a factor of distance,.. if the distance is at an arc, What is the velocity? hmm...
doesn't this look a lot like a gravitational slingshot? what is the energy involved in that maneuver? from a "thermodynamic" perspective?
Now, take the "T" away......
There's nothing in magnetic theory that prevents us from creating an OU device.
It's simply a matter of us creating the right kind of magnetic arrangement.
Which ordinary magnets, simply do not do in most configurations.
But we have the math for situations that WOULD, if we have specifically designed magnets.
H.J. attempted to teach us his methods, very few fully understand what he was truly talking about.
he was able to create one of these "OU" magnetic situations artificially, by forcing various magnets and their fields
to do things they did not like to do.
meaning, taping or gluing them with like poles facing to compress the field to its maximum.
then an approaching magnet will exceed this max and cause the pole to temporarily flip.
This can be observed using magnetic instruments to have flux intensities thousands of times greater than the
strength of any of the magnets involved. and HJ has pages and pages of documentation that are now becoming part of the public record.
This is a real situation that cannot be described by thermodynamics. We simply do not know the system parameters, the energy state of all the atoms in the magnetic material and their particular alignment, and how that radiation stacks up during the magnetic moment when the poles flip.
We can describe it, with relatively close accuracy, but it is an inequality.
Another inequality is the wick effect. We can describe the behavior, and state the cause to be the gravitational gradient and atmospheric pressure.
But, at the end of the day, we have an OU situation that cannot be defined by thermodynamics.
Whether it be water rising 3mm in a coffee straw, or a redwood tree lifting 10,000 Gallons 1,000 ft into the air in a single day.
What is declared "impossible" by physics, has historically been disproven.
We even have a QM number that defines the % of possibility of everything that is not possible.
It is good to place faith in the past 200 years of physics, but who are any of us to think we know everything there Is to know?
I for one, have seen enough to know that either we DON'T know,.. or they don't WANT us to.....
and from my experiences with the national accredidation system, I would lean towards the second one.