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.

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 Members: 81958
  • *Latest: otrok

  • *Total Posts: 491713
  • *Total Topics: 14472
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 73
  • *Total: 79

Facebook

Author Topic: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.  (Read 71879 times)

Offline teslaedison

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #75 on: May 11, 2011, 08:50:13 PM »
Hello Guys,
     That are doing a great work but I would love to put my two sense into the pot if I may because I did an experiment with just distilled water by itself with the use of Paper clip and stainless steel spoon so if you are interested in how I did it by Tesla's AC with Edison's DC working together please contact me below at bottom of this message.

PS : Here is a video showing white pure H2 and O2 white cloud gases below

http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?at=5776ccb97e4a432d923e9b4186cad72e&a=177157c753114cd4a05ac46773477d7f

Also more information below too.
      You are not giving the totall account of Dr. Randell Mills processes which he says that the electrons are round shape disks when it comes to a positive proton that the electron wraps around it as a bubble so go check his explanation to what I totally believe is true web site below:
www.blacklightpower.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymlc8nk7Mdk

PS if you have any questions about this to please contact me at any time so I can explain his processes which will evidently become the new wave of energy for the future of all of mankind !! 
Sincerely,
Thomas C.
Cell Number: 309-660-4627

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #76 on: May 27, 2012, 09:07:58 AM »
Ha Ha,Some inspirational words from me,if you want to know the reality!If you design your gravity powered engine logically with Balanced Energy process equation,then nobody will stop you from inventing a gravity Powered engine.

Defination of perpetual Motion Machine from Wikipedia:

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not. 


Gravity engines are possible,but Gravity powered Devices are Not Perpetual Motion Machines.


Well do you know what is the real problem.?

The problem is the dangerous cancerous virus called "Perpetual". Real Gravity engines are not perpetual and PMM do not exists.

People falsely stupidly relate Perpetual motion machines with "Gravity engines" without understanding about PMM (Perpetual Motion Machines)and how gravitational energy can be used to run a gravity engine.

The problem with most people is they do not think properly about the fundamental Principle involved in any Gravity engine which needs little Electrical energy supplied initially.

There are 95 percent chances that working 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.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

Idiot People who do not believe in Gravity engines say that since you get more energy than supplied it violates physics and hence Gravity engines are impossible.

But the most worst thing is they do not consider the freely available hidden energy source in nature itself :The amplified larger quantity of gravitational energy used in innovative way than that of energy needed to lift heavy object up.

And the problem lies in cheaters claiming to invent/people attempting engines violating Laws of thermodynamics.
The Internet is full of around 100000 nonsense claims of Perpetual Motion Machines which are actually misguiding most people to believe that either gravity engines are not possible or are perpetual.

The words "gravity engines" themselves reveal that these engines use gravitational energy as input to engine.So there is no question of violating Energy conservation law.That is why I say Everytime that about 60 percet of world is going towards intelluctual drain.

I have putted my research work on Gravity engines here in a proper Format in few new webpages(not the older ones):

Sketch and explanation on: http://flic.kr/p/bycsbo

Further elaboration on:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5266

My blog with three articles as of now on

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog.php?w=7

Here are few more threads I started regarding few more new ideas on Non-Perpetual Gravity wheels/engines:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

And

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5272

My simple experiments have proved that I am on right path.

Please do see these websites.All these are one of the few real scientific documents on"Real Non-Perpetual"Gravity Engines.

People have horrible confussions about gravity engines:

1) 50 percent People at many forums are not ready to accept gravity as a source of energy input and say that Gravity engines break laws of thermodynamics and cannot work.This is a illogical idea,as if people have stopped using their brains and are continuing listening to things others are telling,without validating those things themselves by thinking about it.
These people even do not know that gravitational energy is a usable source of free energy.

One example of these kind of people is

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/98119248301/p/25

They are not willing to accept the proof I have given.
Everytime they try to show the example/analogy of my engine/logical proof as wrong by wrongly Un-Succesfully manupulating it with failure to do so.By trying to prove me wrong ,they are actually violating laws of physics.
Another example is Science Hypography Science Forums who ban any post on Gravity powered engine inspite of giving real proof examples,because they do not want to accept the reality and want to stick to thinking that gravity engines cannot be made.No physics textbooks tells that gravitational energy is not source of energy,it only disagrees with concept of Perpetual Motion Machine.

One illogical explanation/comment from my Opponents: "Gravity is not energy source but it is a force".

I answered:"There is no force without Energy."
These opponents were actually violating the law of conservation of energy,as if no energy is needed to displace anything and anything will move on its own,from up to down.

2) 40 percent people think that Gravity engines are Perpetual,go against law of thermodynamics and are possible.But is actually not at all very correct.

3) 5 percent people either have no idea or have confusions about this.

4) 5 percent people have really understood logically and correctly that Gravity engines are possible and they cannot be perpetual because these engines use somehow gravitational energy as input energy and convert them to usable electrical power.And here you do not get more energy than that you actually totally put in to the system.I am in this category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------–------
Surprisingly,These percentage distribution results are too horrible and unbelievable to me.How most people including big post professors are making such big mistakes regarding understanding of gravity as source of power?This percentage results is clearly showing the brain drain /drain of intelluctuality that's happening in the world.

Converting Freely available energy from nature into other form of Freely available usable energy like electricity is not Perpetual provided you do not generate any magical new energy.
There is a difference between the words"conversion" and "generation".


Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #77 on: May 28, 2012, 12:44:32 PM »
A good information on Real Free energy technologies is available on:

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #78 on: November 24, 2012, 08:01:06 AM »
2nd Post... here goes...

Ok, so my take on "Overunity" and "Free Energy" are such....

"Over Unity" means getting more energy out than is being put in.  Duh... right?  ... But let's examine that...

Most people consider this to mean a device that outputs more energy (usually electricity) than is being provided to the device.  This is IMPOSSIBLE.

All energy conversion devices require more energy than they provide to the end use.  The end usable energy available would be exactly the same except for losses...in a different form.

What a lot of people here are wishing to achieve is converting energy that we are not being charged for.... in money, nor effort or one that the net cost less in money or labor than the result would cost. This is why it is called "Free".

Consider this....

When I was 12, I started working on energy conversion ideas.  I put two ring magnets (about 1"OD X 1/4" ID) on a pencil and stuck the pencil into a block of styrofoam.   The two rings were arranged repelling.
The top ring was suspended about 3/4" above the lower ring.   I still have that experiment... I keep it as a motivational piece.   33 years later that top magnet is still floating.  I still have it.

At the time, I was studying potential vs kinetic energy in school (I went to some special schools).  I was always trying to decide whether this energy the two magnets was producing was potential or kinetic?
So which is it?  I decide on kinetic due to the fact that the magnets would spring apart if the space were compressed beyond the weight of of the upper ring.
Consider this like holding a ball in the air using a hose and water pressure.  The water pressure is kinetic even though at some point the ball will cease to gain altitude.

The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

That said, my paradox was that if this were true, then the table supporting a bowling ball was doing "work" just as holding a bowling ball in the air with your arm is doing "work".  Applying a force requires "work", and "work" requires energy.

One of course...has to factor time...

How much energy does it take to lift a 25klb school bus 1" in the air for 1 second?  Be it via lever or electric jack, how much does that second of lift cost?  If it's 50 men lifting it for that one second by hand, how much does it cost in calories?  How much does it cost in calories to lift it for 2 seconds instead?  How many calories to lift that bus up and down 10 times?

Ok, well my little 50cent ring magnets have lifted the weight of that school bus 100's if not thousands of times over when time is considered.  1 ounce of "thrust" for 33 years and still going.

This qualifies (in my book) as "Free Energy" as it cost no more than the original parts (2 magnets, pencil, styrofoam)... its a bargain at the very least, but it does not count as "OverUnity" because the force being produced by these magnets is the source, and they are always producing it.  There is no force coming out more than what is being applied, it's just nearly in expendable in nature.

This is why I always get bothered when folks quote the law of conservation when debunking "free energy" machines.   Just because a 50cent magnet arrangement can lift the equivalent weight many hundreds of thousands of times it's own weight over time doesn't mean energy isn't being "input".  It simply means it's not being paid for, and it's not exhausting.

Consider if you compressed the two magnets and it lifted the top one into the air and then had expended its energy and you had to recharge them to do it again.  You could then weigh the cost of having to recharge the magnets vs the work they did.  If the cost to recharge the magnets was less than the comparable "work", you'd then have an "Overunity" device that breaks the law of conservation.

That however is not the case.  We simply have a nearly inexhaustible source of energy with a near null cost vs work.

So you see, "Free Energy" does exist.  You do have to pay for the parts to convert it.   "OverUnity", in my best estimation... is impossible.

Regards


Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #79 on: November 25, 2012, 09:04:52 AM »
Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

Quote
The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

Work, in physics, is force times distance. Its units are ultimately the same as the units of energy in the Systeme Internationale (SI), that is, the Joule.
If you put a weight on a physical spring, the spring compresses and then just sits there, year after year..... but it's not doing work if the weight isn't moving due to an applied force. In your magnet situation you have a combination of 2 potential energies directed in opposite directions: The GPE of the lifted weight, and the magnetic potential energy of the "spring" of the repelling fields. The system is not moving... this is how you can tell that all the forces are in exact equilibrium!! Therefore no work is being done, in a physics sense.

When you first raise up the top magnet, you have input work by raising the magnet against the earth's gravity... giving it more GPE. When you release the magnet, it moves: converting some of the GPE into real work, which is done against the opposing MPE of the repelling magnetic fields. That is, the GPE must do work against the MPE. When the system stops moving, you are at a point where the downward force produced by gravity on the mass of the object, is exactly equalized by the upward force produced by the repelling fields. You can bounce around this point and see that both fields are conservative: if your rod was frictionless and you were in a vacuum with no drag, you could give the thing a bop and it would bobble forever (but radiating energy as EM vibrations so would eventually stop moving.... when all the energy (the force of your bop times the distance you applied it-- work -- ) you provided from your initial bop was radiated away.) In the real system, I'm sure you have bopped it plenty of times over the years and watched it bounce a bit. Friction against the rod converted the work of your bop into heat and tiny leeetle pieces of sawdust, so the bouncing stopped pretty fast and the system came back into motionless -- and workless -- equilibrium, still storing the initial work you put into it all those years ago when you raised up that upper magnet to put it in place. You can get it back at any time though: when you lift the upper magnet up off the rod, the magnetic field repulsion will "help" you and you will be doing less work than if the field wasn't repelling.

ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!
 ;)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #79 on: November 25, 2012, 09:04:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #80 on: November 25, 2012, 06:28:43 PM »
ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!
 ;)
don't be asinine... ::)  no human 'payed' for the sun...  ::)

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #81 on: November 25, 2012, 07:11:38 PM »
Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

Work, in physics, is force times distance....  <snip>
 ;)

Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.

So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.

The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.

As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #81 on: November 25, 2012, 07:11:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13526
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #82 on: November 25, 2012, 09:26:08 PM »
Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.
If permanent magnets were electromagnets all kinds of things would be different. Yes, it takes work to sustain a magnetic field in an electromagnet, unless you are using superconductors, in which case it takes work to keep them cold. Work is not measured in "years"..... the "work/year" would be a measure of POWER like the Watt (which is a Joule of work or energy PER second) and yes,  the electric company will bill you for the total energy in watt-seconds (tiny chunks of kW-H) or ..... Joules.



So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.
[/qute] So? You aren't going to be able to do _work_ against the gravitational field of force, in order to levitate the other magnet up to a stable non-moving position unless you input some _energy_.... equivalent to work..... to the system to do it. And guess what: the input energy, input at a rate measured in Watts, will determine how fast your levitated part rises and how high.
Quote
The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.
Thrust is a "force" measured in newtons, times seconds/Joules... hmm.  And a Joule is a Watt-second..... so your expression reduces to (Newtons x seconds)/(Watts x seconds) = Newtons/Watts ..... Newtons per Watt? What you are describing seems to be something like Specific Impulse but not quite. Newtons per Watt? That's some kind of efficiency figure I think.
(Edited... the algebra is confusing this early in the morning....)

 
Quote
As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards

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.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #83 on: November 25, 2012, 09:42:23 PM »
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.
liar.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8362
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2012, 07:44:45 AM »
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #84 on: November 26, 2012, 07:44:45 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #85 on: November 26, 2012, 10:37:46 AM »
I am involved with several topics on this site and the question always seems to come up:  What is free energy? And: What is overunity?

I know we are all here looking for it but how can we find it if we can't agree on what it is?  To me, I think it is a given that energy can't be created or destroyed.  Having said that, I believe there are some "free energy" deices working right now.  My earth battery is but one, and I know of several others....depending on your definition of "free energy".

My earth batteries generate power with no input from me.  To me, this is "free energy".  The guy with the water wheel living by a river is getting "free energy" to him, and he can power whatever he wants from it.  Windmills, the same thing.
Also solar, etc.

So, my definition of these devices as "free energy" does not mean the power comes from nowhere.  We know where it comes from, and it fits all of the known laws of physics.  But, is this still "free energy"?  I believe it is.

Hans Von Lieven once said that if one were to touch a match to a puddle of crude oil leaking from the ground, it would ignite and produce heat and light, all for the effort of striking the match.  So, these could be seen as both "free energy" and "overunity" by some folks.  Of course it is burning hydrocarbons and this reaction is well known so the energy is not coming from nowhere, but, we do need to define our parameters if we are hoping to find new power sources.

So, my purpose of this topic is to help open a dialog on what the parameters are for that which we all are searching for.  what is "free energy" and what is "overunity?

Please feel free to post any and all ideas on this subject.  Without a clear definition that we all agree upon,  how will we know if we find it or not?  Thank you.

Bill


Let me be as clear as I possibly can. Any device that either generates or converts energy is an under-unity or at best a unity device. There is a logical "battery" unaccounted for, somewhere in the equation, to make the statement of overunity, or COP>1. For instance, if a device is drawing from the zero point field, then the zero point field is the battery, and the device is woefully inefficient if the output is less than an atomic blast of huge proportion. (That is how much energy is supposed to be in that particular battery, and at unity would equal a sudden release of all the stored energy.)


As far as "work", the logic behind the current definition is biased so as to negate the possibility of perpetual motion. However, the actual definition of "work"........, I am not saying this lightly. The word has many different definitions in science, from general physics, electrical, and thermodynamic.


An example from wikipedia under Work (Thermodynamics):


Quote
In [/size]thermodynamics[/font][/size], [/size]work[/size] performed by a [/size]closed system[/font][/size] is the [/size]energy[/font][/size] transferred to another system that is measured by the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system. Essential to the thermodynamic concept of work is that the energy transfer in fictive principle be able to occur at a finite rate without any of it necessarily being dissipated by friction or chemical degradation, which are necessarily dissipative.[/size]


If you find yourself using the terms "open system" or "closed system" you are referring to principles of thermodynamics, and the thermodynamic definition is the usable and accurate definition. Work does not necessarily involve motion, just energy transfer. Where work becomes hard to measure is in the application of constant energy transfer, such as gravity of magnetism, or the proverbial kitchen table. Though energy is being transferred, it is difficult to conceive as work being done.


This is causal of a misapplication of logic. Measuring expected motion (current usage of work) is one of TWO equally important concepts. Motion where there should be motion is the obvious use, but LACK OF MOTION where there should be motion is just as measurable, and just as applicable! (Or for that matter motion where there should not be motion.)


As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


On another subject, your thoughts about "free energy" I find highly logical. "Free energy" is indeed energy which is free (costs nothing) to produce. It is an economic term, and not a scientific term. Many forms of free energy exist, such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, water, etc,. These indeed are all free energy sources.


Free energy only has meaning when limited resources must be used to generate the energy, otherwise the term is nonsensical.


Paul Andrulis


Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #86 on: November 26, 2012, 10:46:34 AM »
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill

Yes, exactly.   One has to determine if the force separating the floating magnets is "thrust", or "potential energy", and you are correct about the table but who is to say it isn't true?
There is energy in that table... a very important energy to anyone who wishes to be more than a scattered cloud of random atoms.   

At first glance, the suspended magnet display is an example of potential energy... like a spring.   The two fields seek a state of equilibrium in pattern per magnet.  The interaction attempts to displace this natural state and hence a counter force is sustained until returned to that state (i.e.... pulling a guitar string and holding it for 33 years).  Is this the case with magnetic fields?  I'm not sure.

The magnet does indeed have properties that make one think of it in this way, but also has properties of gravity and electricity.  Is a magnet field a spring trying to return to it's natural state, or is a magnet producing actual "attraction" such as gravity?   If two magnets are "attracted", then the reverse would be "repulsion" or..... "Thrust".   "Thrust", aside from the physics definition, in my book requires "work" even once an equilibrium with the thrusted object is achieved.

If attraction or repulsion are the case, then I would suggest that both require energy and a constant supply of it, and that is the important thing to key on.

This of course is more than semantics in the world of OU.  Which concept you subscribe to, and of course which concept is accurate has a huge bearing on the potential success of many OU projects.

It is the very basis of conceptualizing magnetic OU machine since if the magnets behaves as a spring, there is absolutely no way to arrange any shape or configuration of springs that will obtain continuous and long term motion.

If magnets produce "Thrust" (which I believe they do), then permanent magnet engines are at least possible, and both the magnet....and the table... are doing "work" with the difference being that the table is unable to  do work outside of it's own structure.

This is an important distinction to consider.

All the Best
P.S.  Bill, sorry.  I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I'm not that bright sometimes.



Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #87 on: November 26, 2012, 10:50:04 AM »

<snip>

As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


<snip)

Paul Andrulis

YES!

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #88 on: November 26, 2012, 10:53:13 AM »
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill


Only if using the definition of work from general physics, but in that case you would not have to be concerned with open or closed systems.  :o


If using the definition from thermodynamics, since even at equilibrium energy is being transferred to maintain said equilibrium, which itself affects the physical constraints of the system without the energy transference in the form of friction or heat then yes work is being done at equilibrium.  ;D




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 560
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2012, 05:37:35 PM »
I have in the past considered deeply what I am about to share, and maybe it will give pause for consideration.


For something to contain potential energy is equivalent in concept to a woman being potentially pregnant......  ;D


Either she is, or she is not, cannot have it both ways. Equivalently, either real energy exists in a system, or it does not, so how can it be logically stated as potential?  ???


Example:


Consider a simple circuit containing just a battery and a light bulb connected to said battery. Laying beside the first battery is a second battery, unconnected to the circuit in any way. Do we then count the battery as energy in the system?


So called "potential energy" only holds the designation of "potential" due to the fact it is not actively connected to the system being considered, like a battery with no leads attached to the circuit.


However, the proverbial rock on the side of a mountain HAS no energy not inherent to its mass UNTIL it moves. That is not "potential" anything. That is a LACK of energy. Gravity is constantly performing work upon the rock and the mountain both, but until the rock starts to move it has no energy transferred to itself from gravity. Once the rock starts to move it gains energy from the acceleration placed upon it.


The rock is not the same as the "cocked spring" concept, as the spring itself contains energy when cocked and is constantly exerting measurable force. Otherwise the spring when "un-cocked" contains no energy in the same manner as the stationary rock.


Consider two identical tables. One has nothing upon it, the other has a thousand pounds of lead stacked on it. Which will collapse sooner? The lead itself is doing no work and has no energy, but gravity accelerating the lead and the table resisting the acceleration are and do. The lead is actually resisting a change in it's present motionlessness due to inertia (objects at rest tend to stay at rest).


If no kinetic energy is being exchanged in the system, then why would the table with lead structurally fail before the identical table with no lead?


It is not anyones fault here if you find yourself saying something to the effect of "What the.....(bleep)?"


These concepts may cause everyone to consider the issue a little deeper. Too see just how deep the problem with definitions actually is in physics, examine this link: Specifically the entries on Energy, and Energy (take 2).,


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm


See if you can find the errors, such as when he derides others for their misuse of the concept, then himself does exactly what he accuses them of. There are numerous logical flaws in these two entries.


Paul Andrulis


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #89 on: November 26, 2012, 05:37:35 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: