Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

# New Book

### Statistics

• Total Members: 82255
• Latest: pedro1

• Total Posts: 496675
• Total Topics: 14616
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 5
• Guests: 195
• Total: 200

### Author Topic: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.  (Read 75837 times)

#### Aman Shah

• Newbie
• Posts: 43
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2012, 12:28:46 PM »
Gravity is a force, not energy. objects attain gravitational potential by virtue of their mass AND position in a gravitational field.
Do you know,how idiotic it sounds as if you are really violating "Energy conservation law"
Force cannot exist without energy.

You cannot generate any force if you donot have any energy.I am hearing this on few websites.Who thought you this?
You have completely misunderstood the concept of potential energy.
It is true that Objects attain gravitational potential in a vertical line by their mass and position.But finally what they achieve is potential energy from Gravity of the earth.

Have you ever thought why potential energy remains allmost constant at a given height in a given single vertical line?
Because of opposite reaction from the table or any holding device which is nullifying the continuous consumption of gravitational energy to zero.
That opposite reaction force is coming from inter nuclear energy of materials of holder or table.

Don't just blindly accept any thing or law.Question everything.
If you don't get answer,analyse yourself.

"Unlearn the familiar" and hence "learn the unfamiliar"

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #150 on: December 03, 2012, 12:28:46 PM »

#### Aman Shah

• Newbie
• Posts: 43
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #151 on: December 03, 2012, 12:50:12 PM »
gravitational potential energy remains constant because the masses and positions of the objects are not changing.
I would like to proove you wrong here.In machenics,in study of beams,you calculate reaction forces in beam supports,against weight of beams like simply supported or cantilever beams,just to ensure that potential energy of beam remains constant.

Bye for now.I may come back on this forum.I have some important college assignments.
Last comment is silly and illogical.If you are a teacher,you cannot produce great minds like Einstein,Newton,etc.

I suggest you learn from this website:

Bye for now.

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13634
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #152 on: December 03, 2012, 03:52:12 PM »
Quote
Also it takes larger time for gravity to bend and reach objects on a table when object is hold straight parrallel to table.

I am astonished. Where exactly is Aman Shah a mechanical engineering student? I'd like to take a look at their curriculum and the texts they teach from. Do you suppose they use Beer and Johnston?

#### Aman Shah

• Newbie
• Posts: 43
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #153 on: December 03, 2012, 04:07:40 PM »
I am astonished. Where exactly is Aman Shah a mechanical engineering student? I'd like to take a look at their curriculum and the texts they teach from. Do you suppose they use Beer and Johnston?

Mr Tinsel Koala,
You haven't gone properly through the conversation between me and Giana.
We were exploiting the possible cause of two components of gravity along slope with Refernce to loops of earth's magnetic field.Earth's magnetic field is a loop of magnetic forces from north to south.

Enginiering syllabus is limited to using this two components of gravity.
However we were discussing the possible physics behind formation of two components of gravity which has not yet been studied in depth by quantum Physicsist.

Don't comment without properly going through the conversation.

#### evolvingape

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 478
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2012, 08:30:46 PM »
Part 1

Let us start at the sensible place, the beginning...

http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/talks/NumericalShockWaveCosTalkLong.pdf

I am not going to comment on the last few pages of this thread, it gave me a headache trying to decipher some of the unreferenced nonsense being posted, so I am just going to ignore it.

Enjoy the presentation! Part 2 to follow at some point. Feel free to discuss the implications, ignore the math if you want it does not matter for understanding the concept of Time = 0 and shockwaves.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #154 on: December 03, 2012, 08:30:46 PM »

#### WilbyInebriated

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3143
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #155 on: December 04, 2012, 08:56:31 AM »
i hate to interrupt this tragic conversation...  but do you think we could get back on topic and work on a DEFINITION that is agreeable to the majority?

#### TinselKoala

• Hero Member
• Posts: 13634
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #156 on: December 04, 2012, 09:14:25 AM »
Mr Tinsel Koala,
You haven't gone properly through the conversation between me and Giana.
We were exploiting the possible cause of two components of gravity along slope with Refernce to loops of earth's magnetic field.Earth's magnetic field is a loop of magnetic forces from north to south.

Enginiering syllabus is limited to using this two components of gravity.
However we were discussing the possible physics behind formation of two components of gravity which has not yet been studied in depth by quantum Physicsist.

Don't comment without properly going through the conversation.

Mister Aman Shah
You said this:
Quote
Also it takes larger time for gravity to bend and reach objects on a table when object is hold straight parrallel to table.
And after that you expect me to read through the rest of this thread? You must be kidding. Don't tell me what I can and cannot comment upon, unless you can justify your absurd statements like that with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of your own. It's a wonder you can even stand upright, with all that sideways gravity taking longer to reach you on one side than the other. I simply do not believe that you are actually a real engineering student, because that statement displays such a profound lack of understanding of gravity and just about everything else in the _real_ world of engineering. But go ahead, carry on, I won't bother you any more. Just don't make me go over any bridges you might design.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #156 on: December 04, 2012, 09:14:25 AM »

#### WilbyInebriated

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3143
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #157 on: December 04, 2012, 09:59:01 AM »
unless you can justify your absurd statements like that with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of your own.
more of your hypocrisy...   why should aman have to justify his absurd statements when you won't justify your absurd statements with facts or checkable outside references?
A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.

Q.E.D

#### pauldude000

• Hero Member
• Posts: 569
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #158 on: December 04, 2012, 02:32:46 PM »
guys...   could we PLEASE stay on topic here?

as the title of this thread so astutely observes, we need a definition... not a dissertation on ying/yang or a bunch of bessler links.

from ol' webster...
Definition of UNITY
1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness
b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation <in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity> (2) : identity element

2 a : a condition of harmony : accord
b : continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

3 a : the quality or state of being made one : unification
b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

4: a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

5: any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day

6 capitalized : a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity

now, i think it is clear from webster's definition that the use of the word 'unity' in over-unity really makes no sense whatsoever.

i think the fundamental question here is, are we going to come to a consensus about the definition or would a new term (either an already existing term or one freshly coined) be better suited?

Overunity is actually in reference to COP (Co-efficient Of Performance). When COP<1 it is underunity. When COP=1, it is at unity. When COP>1 it is overunity.

COP is an efficiency formula which measures the ratio of a systems Net Capacity(watts)/Power Input(watts). At unity COP is a balanced system with the Net Capacity equal to the Power Input.  If a system is at overunity, then its Net Capacity is greater than its Power Input.

http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf

#### audiomaker

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 65
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #159 on: December 04, 2012, 08:20:36 PM »
There's a great deal of input in this thread, however the title "We need a definition" might be a good place to start.

First, do we really need a definition?  Why really?

Secondly, if there is actually a need, then should that definition be more precise, or more vague than each person's current version and why?

Ask yourself these two questions, then proceed....

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #159 on: December 04, 2012, 08:20:36 PM »

#### Pirate88179

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 8362
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #160 on: December 05, 2012, 08:06:16 AM »
Well folks, I am glad to see the conversations here in an attempt to define what it is that we all appear to be searching for.

Some excellent thoughts have been brought out, and some other off-topic thoughts as well.  This demonstrates exactly why I began this topic.  There are a lot of really smart, educated folks here and yet, agreement on what the "Holy"Grail" of energy research would be seems problematic to define.

It goes back to my earlier thoughts of....how will we know if we have discovered "it" if we do not know what "it" is and can agree?  Part of it might just be semantics I am sure....but....I believe it runs deeper than that.  I believe we need a fundamental term that fully describes what we seek.  Then, we need to clearly define what this term means, and, does not mean.  Easier said than done to be sure.

If "Overunity" is not the term, what is?  Or, should we re-define "Overunity" to mean something other than the Webster's definition?  Customize it to suit our own needs? (This has been done many times in the computer industry...mouse is but one example.)

I hope we can continue this important conversation and I urge everyone to be respectful please.  This is important stuff.

Thanks,

Bill

#### Aman Shah

• Newbie
• Posts: 43
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #161 on: December 05, 2012, 08:34:19 AM »
Bill,

As I alluded to above, the first thing all have to agree on is the separation of "Renewable Energy"systems, from "extra" energy by other means.

I strongly suggest keeping renewable energy systems out of the discussion, because this is known and proven technology, and it comes from sources that are tangible. So the answer to your question about your earth battery; can you put your finger on the source of extra energy? If so, then that is energy from known physical processes, and in this case comes directly from the earth. I don't know much about the earth battery, but do I assume correctly that it also renews itself?

I believe the other issue you are asking about, having now separated renewable energy systems from overunity/free energy systems, is how does one know when or if they've achieved "it"?

In my own mind this is fairly clear, but having observed and taken part in this forum for quite some time, I'd have to say it's not so obvious for many. There are a lot of good experimenters here, some with extraordinary skills, but by and large, it is a learning process through which eyes are opened and lessons are learned with a few "false alarms" along the way.

A protocol for if (the big one), when, and how to post OU claims would be fairly straightforward (not necessarily easy or quick) to produce, but unless asked to do so, I would not volunteer my time because I have seen good documents such as this would be, go largely unheeded by most even though obvious effort went into it.

.99

Bullshit.
Gravity powered engine technology is nothing more than Renewable free energy technology.

We don't have a single highly efficient ,portable,compact,commercial,renewable energy system and that is making a problem.

According to my own experience on science forums,Free energy Suppresion is however true for efficient renewable energy technologies.
Overunity does not exist.However,Gravity powered engines (Example :Gravity wheels)may exist in future which I am not at all denying.

Nothing can move on its own,neither any Bessler wheel would produce any motion because of its special constructional feature (this is being suggested in bessler wheel community).

Today's most efficient experimental solar cell is only 30 percent efficient.
Solar energy is neither concentrated either.
Wind energy and tidal energy system needs lots of land space,are expensive and does not have efficiency of more than 30 percent.

We need to really take out wraps from suppressed by government and people"highly efficient compact portable low cost renewable free energy"systems.

Gravity powered systems can be made with concepts of overcommable resistances or Potential energy gradients,both of which I have already discussed in my blog articles if you have went through them.

Still you want to waste your time and continue nonsense defining overunity against renewable energy,I will not disturb you.
Good luck!

Or else try building up something practical using my concepts of Overcommable resistance or Varrying potential gradient.

Let us try to figure out a practical gravity engine system:
Let us take a analogous example for this:

If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,
Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.

The concept is based on "Overcommable resistance" where 2X -X is energy needed to displace Overcommable resistance(additional powder bulk).

I have got a concept to use this idea or analogy which is under patenting.

#### Aman Shah

• Newbie
• Posts: 43
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #162 on: December 05, 2012, 01:51:50 PM »
It won't work and I'm prepared to wager an amount you care to name against this being possible.

You do not understand the basic principles of the conservation of  mass , energy  and momentum or you would realise how ridiculous your proposals are.

Or I should say,you don't understand simple logic of physics.You are not eligible to be a part of this forum.
Neither you have a Commonsense that you need more energy to displace more mass and less energy to displace less mass.

If readers here are not understating the above example,
Please see this Flickr webpage as well as read the explanation below the attached image for different example for the same concept:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6927929850/

Better go and teach conventional knowledge of old age to some slum area students.They will easily accept your knowledge without questioning or thinking how logical your lessons are.People who do not want to do something extraordinary in life do not think logically and accept anything without questioning.

#### Mr Summitville

• Newbie
• Posts: 9
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #163 on: October 01, 2014, 08:50:45 PM »

Overunity is actually in reference to COP (Co-efficient Of Performance). When COP<1 it is underunity. When COP=1, it is at unity. When COP>1 it is overunity.

COP is an efficiency formula which measures the ratio of a systems Net Capacity(watts)/Power Input(watts). At unity COP is a balanced system with the Net Capacity equal to the Power Input.  If a system is at overunity, then its Net Capacity is greater than its Power Input.

http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf

Any consensus here that "Over-Unity" should be defined as "COP" and not as "Efficiency" ?

#### Vinyasi

• Newbie
• Posts: 7
##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #164 on: November 29, 2017, 03:22:24 PM »
"We need a definition" ---> Energy plus Intelligence yields Command of Nature.
It is up to us to decide the outcome. Do we want that energy to dissipate or increase? We get to decide which way it will go -- not subject to anyone's else's policy.

I think Joseph Newman says it simply when he makes an analogy between shorting out a battery using a short piece of wire versus a very long piece which has been wound up into a coil. The longer piece of wire is also heavier gauge and can be several miles long.

The shorter wire will heat up, and the battery will heat up or explode, and the amp hours on the battery will quickly dissipate to becoming a dead battery.

Meanwhile, the longer piece of massively coiled heavy gauge wire will not draw much amperage from the battery. The battery will get recharged by the voltage gain in this coil if the commutator is constructed properly.

Phase One: 50% duty cycle - Charge the coil.
Phase Two: 30% duty cycle - Rest.
Phase Three: 20% duty cycle - Self-short the coil between its two ends and disconnected from the battery. Do not ever short the coil to ground. Allow it to build up voltage (which should become greater than the battery). And, BTW, the battery is a pack of small batteries (such as 9 volt) strung in series supplying a few hundred volts, but very little amps, to the coil.

This coil will produce a very large magnetic field unlike the short piece of wire creating hardly any field at all.

So, where does the extra energy come if not from the materials of construction plus wave mechanics?

Certainly not from the battery, alone.

In fact, the battery serves merely as a catalyst to release energy in each case.

But it is their geometry of construction which dictates how energy will be released and from where will it be released in each case making each example quite different in outcome.

I spent a lot of money purchasing a hard copy of Newman's eighth edition of his Energy Machine book through Amazon. It has been well worth browsing through. I like holding books in my hands.

But it's also good to have available a PDF scanned version that's free and which does not require a credit card to authorize its download. To that end, I managed to upload a scanned copy of the fourth edition to archive dot org...
http://is.gd/new4th

I doubt anyone working as a physicist or electrical engineer spends much of their attention span thinking about the wave mechanics inherent in every single circuit which they design.

Yet, wave mechanics covers one-half of electrodynamics shared equally in importance by the energy mass relation of E = M x C-squared. We're so monotheistic here in the West when it comes to our ideologies of electrical theory. We have a lot to gain by applying a more Eastern approach by adding to, not subtracting from, our theory the additional insight of the Tao.

If the Yang of the Tao represents our insistence that all energy IN much equal all energy OUT, then the stuff which appears seemingly from out of nowhere in between IN and OUT must be invoking the Yin aspect of the Tao, namely: Intelligence.

It's not smart to burn up a battery and overheat a short thin piece of wire connecting the two terminals of a battery.

But it's very smart to use a much longer piece of heavy wire which is also coiled to further maximize its magnetic output.

That's my theology of electricity: two Gods. One representing Gain and the other representing Loss. Each has no theoretical limit. Only circumstances can limit us.

Take Tesla vaporizing strands of copper wire to see how far he could go at pumping massive quantities of energy into them, because he knew of the theoretical limit to overunity is non-existent. Only the materials of construction, plus their circumstance, and to what degree of Intelligence do we work into our circuitry designs will dictate any limitation to free energy.

One further example is Tesla's Special Generator...
http://is.gd/specgenpgs

I believe that the 'M' coils are equivalent to Joseph Newman's massive coils.

But Tesla goes further by adding lots of iron -- tons of it according to William Lyne in chapter 8 of his book, Pentagon Aliens -- to enhance the efficiency of his device by magnetically coupling the hull of a Nazi era Electro U Boat to the iron cores of those 'M' coils. And Thomas Commerford Martin quotes Tesla as saying (during the 1893 demonstration cited in his text linked, above) that the period of reciprocation of his device is very important -- in other words, non-varying. Probably serves to enhance resonance and further add to energy gain?

And researchers attempting to theorize how the Testatika device operates have speculated that the horseshoe magnets up front surround a multilayered electret sandwiched between the two feet  of each horseshoe electromagnet. I believe this is analogous to the 'H' coils in Tesla's Special Generator. And since I further speculate that the rods around which these 'H' coils are wound are made of solid aluminum, the open speculation floating around online may be true that the alternate name for this generator is a Tri-Metal Generator composed of: copper, aluminum and iron.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #164 on: November 29, 2017, 03:22:24 PM »