Cookies-law

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.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 487626
  • *Total Topics: 14342
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 239
  • *Total: 244

Facebook

Author Topic: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.  (Read 68410 times)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2008, 09:45:49 PM »
@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline captainpecan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2008, 10:53:12 PM »
@Bill

Your exactly right, that bowling ball had potential energy stored in it.  Which is the reason it all adds up to Unity.  Without that potential, the other forms of energy could not have entered into the equation causing the glasses to shatter.  Like if the bowling ball was sitting right next to the glasses, touching them. Then if you touched it, it would simply transfer the energy of the touch to the glasses, and they would not shatter, they would just get pushed a little.

I think you and I view it all pretty much exactly the same, although terminology may differ slightly from time to time.

I would like to hear what Spark's has to say on this issue!  I always like following his posts, as there seems to always be something interesting, and he always presents his knowledge in a way that gets me thinking... !


Offline dean_mcgowan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #32 on: December 16, 2008, 12:29:01 AM »
One way to think of it the way I see it.

Picture a bowling ball resting at the top of a steep incline.  At the bottom of the incline is a bunch of glass glasses.  Now if you were to exert a tiny little push with your finger on those glasses, they may move a tiny bit. Nothing great.  But if you were to exert the exact same little push on the bowling ball, it would roll forward, begin rolling down the incline picking up extra energy from gravity, momentum, and whatever else.  Now what happens to those glasses when the bowling ball hits them...  They all shatter!

With this example, the exact same amount of force was put into touching the glasses with your finger, as was put into touching the bowling ball with your finger.  But the energy the bowling ball exerted was much different.

Now, with this example, the extra energy that bowling ball gained on it's way to the glasses was free energy.  "Available" energy that it gained along the way.  You did not ad this energy.  It entered the system by other means.  Although you ended up with much more force hitting the glasses than you put into pushing the bowling ball, it is not over-unity.  If you only figured in the amount of force you exerted, and compared it to the amount of force the bowling ball exerted, then it surely would show over-unity.  But that would be an incorrect way of figuring it.  Over-Unity is measured by all forces entering the equation, compared to all forces leaving the equation.  So if you compare the force that was exerted on the glasses and whatever else it took to make the bowling ball stop, with the force you exerted on the bowling ball, and all the forces of gravity, and momentum, and any other energies that made the bowling ball move...  You end up with exactly Unity!

Free Energy... yes...  Over-Unity.. no...

Perpetual Motion may be possible, due to a system being at exact unity, except for one thing.  The little word "forever" that is added to it's definition.  Perpetual Motion machines must run "forever" without ever stopping.  We have not invented a way to eliminate all forms of friction and resistance, so even if you were to get a device to run for 500yrs before it stopped, it is still going to eventually wear out and stop, thus meaning it is not perpetual motion.  I really wish this term did not get associated with "free energy", as I believe this is one of the reasons that "free energy buffs" get so much ridicule.

You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.

Offline dean_mcgowan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #33 on: December 16, 2008, 12:33:00 AM »
@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill

Perpetual motion might best be described as a lossless closed system. Again though this defies the 3rd law...




Offline captainpecan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 335
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2008, 01:03:59 AM »
You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.


No, I never ignored it.  I just forgot to mention it.  I answered that one in a later post, as Bill was quick to point it out also...  ;).  The example is not meant to show Over-Unity, only to show my definition of what energy could be called "free" energy.  I was referring to the extra energy that showed it's head making the ball roll with more velocity.  It was energy that was always there to begin with, hince, no over-unity. I am terming it as "free" energy only because it was "available" energy you could not see and you did not exert onto the object to start with.  It was energy that was once just "available", but now was "used".  Just a simple example that will exert more force into the glasses, than the force put into the bowling ball.  There still was no gain in overall energy, that was kind of the point... It just appears to have more energy out then in. In actuality, it's still just Unity as always.


From your posts, I get the feeling you believe it is impossible to have free energy, over-unity, or perpetual motion?  Is this really your beliefs?  If not, please explain where you think the energy is going to come from to make a valid free energy device.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #34 on: December 16, 2008, 01:03:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #35 on: December 16, 2008, 01:20:51 AM »
@ Captainpecan:

Here is a slight adjustment to your bowling ball example:  2 Cavemen are standing on top of a hill.  They are leaning against a large round rock while trying to think of a way to clear some trees out down below so they can make a hut.

The 1st caveman says he has no idea and tries to sit down on the rock, which starts to move.  He jumps off just in time and he, and the other caveman, watch this gigantic boulder begin rolling down the hill toward the grove of small trees.

Well, you can guess what happens.  Yes, the trees are plowed over and their work, which was going to take them all summer, was now done it 30 seconds with very little effort on their part.

OK, so the rock was there on the hilltop for over 3.15 million years as was the gravity surrounding it.  The cavemen do not know about gravity as this was prior to Newton, and they have no idea about overunity either. they have no idea that the boulder had potential energy.

What I am trying to say is, to the cavemen, who were then quickly elected chief engineers of their tribe, had no idea where the energy came from, they just used it.  We know about the potential energy and, as Captainpecan has stated many times, there was unity there.  Try telling that to the cavemen.  Of course, by now I imagine they have passed away.

We are, in many ways, like the cavemen.  All sources of power have not been discovered or documented.  Until that day, should it occur, we will have what some think is overunity but is, in reality, unity.

Bill                     PS  Sorry for the crummy story, I just made it up to attempt to explain my thoughts.

Offline TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2008, 01:47:53 AM »

Quote
They can't have it both ways can they?



Absolutely right!   


Oh but they'll try......and try.....


TS

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #36 on: December 16, 2008, 01:47:53 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Digjam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #37 on: December 16, 2008, 02:02:16 AM »
I agree with Pirate , there needs to be a definition.
But maybe we are looking at the Wrong words..

ALL Energy is FREE and NO Energy is FREE.

Example:Suppose You are in the desert, There is plenty of heat from the sun
All you could possibly want .BUT The more of the heat your body absorbs,
the more it costs you in water-loss.(dehydration).
SO it is free for the taking, but there is Always a cost in the using.

If, as science says:Energy can't be created or destroyed, then the term
"Renewable Energy" is also wrong , And "Reusable Energy".Well is would seem to
be logical that ALL Energy is Reusable.So that term fails.

I think the word "Energy" should be left out of the "what we are looking for"
We hear reports of "Peak Oil" . And that is where some get it wrong.
Oil is NOT energy.. it is just a fuel or container ..When ALL the Oil is gone
there will still be Just as much "Energy" as there was before the dinosaurs rotted.

SO.What ARE we looking for ?? A new container? a New fuel? a New extraction method?
A new Harnessing method?

We all want "Free",but there is Always a cost.

As for Overunity .That word should probably be thrown out is favor in"Most Efficient"
We all know that Nature ( the universe) strives for equilibrium therefore Overunity is an impossibility.


If all we want is "Free Energy" then it is All around us.
So maybe it isn't Definitions we need, but different Terms.


Offline TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1270
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #38 on: December 16, 2008, 02:10:29 AM »

I vote for "most efficient".



TS

Offline FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
    • HackersClub.NET
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2008, 02:46:26 AM »
thanks for starting this topic Pirate88179!  :)

we definitely needed a topic like this. my brain tickles lol  :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2008, 02:46:26 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2008, 03:24:48 AM »
@ All:

OK, here is one I am tossing out:  0 Cost energy.  This would represent all energy that is available to us at "no cost" meaning financially.  Of course, this does not mean for folks to steal energy....I can add that specifically to a definition.

@TechStuf:

I like most efficient as well.  It does not imply that the energy comes from nowhere and also, handles the stealing part.

I think I can say that my earth battery is 0 Cost energy.

I can also say that it is "most efficient" as well.  This is great, now we are getting somewhere.

Bill

Offline utilitarian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2008, 03:53:36 AM »

I think I can say that my earth battery is 0 Cost energy.


Until the Earth is depleted of charge!  Will we lose our magnetic field then?  The magnetic field is vital to keeping some deadly radiation from reaching our planet's surface, so we really need that field to stay on.


Offline Digjam

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2008, 04:42:18 AM »
@ All:

OK, here is one I am tossing out:  0 Cost energy.  This would represent all energy that is available to us at "no cost" meaning financially.  Of course, this does not mean for folks to steal energy....I can add that specifically to a definition.



You are still using the term "energy" .. Since All Energy is "Free" you can't steal it.

I think what you are talking about is "Power" or maybe not.
Does the electric grid transmit Power? or Energy?
If you cut down a tree for firewood, is it energy? or does it contain energy, or is it just a fuel?
Surely when you burn it you have heat which IS "thermal Energy" but what was it before the fire?
Wood won't burn in a lack of oxygen , so is oxygen energy?
Do we really care what is energy or do we care more what is power, or is what we are looking for fuel?

We can all agree that whatever it is we are looking for we want that something to be abundant and
knows no national boundaries.



@Pirate
How many earth batteries would it take to"Power" my house ;)

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2008, 05:04:34 AM »
@ Digjam:

Well, Nathan Stubblefield heated his home, illuminated his home and farm and ran the entire telephone system of Murry, Ky off of his earth batteries....and this was in the late 1890's.  I am not sure how many it took...but...who cares?  It was all free.  The power grid did not make it to his area until many, many years later.  That is why I am so fascinated by this device.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all energy is free.  This is ok as we all have our opinions and these are uncharted waters.  Try telling your opinion to your power company and see what happens.... ha ha.  I think I get what you mean though.  Heck, right now, the air we breathe is free but I would not be shocked if sometime in the near future, we have to pay an air company bill for all of the breaths we take.

Bill


Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2008, 05:08:10 AM »
thanks for starting this topic Pirate88179!  :)

we definitely needed a topic like this. my brain tickles lol  :D

Thank you for your post.  Yes, I think it is interesting but, there may not be an agreeable solution to this dilemma. That is why I started this.  0 cost energy is all around us and we can all tap into it if we choose.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2008, 05:08:10 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: