New theories about free energy systems > Theory of overunity and free energy
"Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Pirate88179:
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
poynt99:
I think it's an issue of confusing the term "free". In cases where the energy comes from natural sources that we can touch, feel smell etc. and are naturally replenished, such as solar, wind, geothermal etc. these should be correctly called "Renewable Energy", not free energy, even though we do not pay for that energy by way of money or physical effort. That's how they are "free".
I think we are all in agreement though that the majority people on this site are interested in obtaining energy from sources that we can not touch, feel, smell or otherwise conjure up from some common physical entity.
Therefore, for the scope of this discussion and for all intents and purposes, "Free Energy" and "Overunity" are synonymous.
Asking to go any further with discerning between the two will open up the same can of worms that has been open several times already in this forum I think. No one seems to be able to agree on the definitions, especially when others throw "efficiency" into the mix. Don't go there please!
So I guess for me its all a non-issue, but surely many will not see it this way.
.99
Pirate88179:
poynt99:
Thanks for posting. Yes, it is certainly a can of worms. I can't tell you how many topics this comes up in, again and again. But, this is exactly my point. If I develop a device that does "X", and then claim FE or OU, folks would come out of the woodwork and say things like, that is not FE, you had to pay for the transistor, etc.
All I am asking for here, and I know it is not a small task, is to agree or almost agree on a set of parameters to define that which we are all searching for. I understand your point, trust me I do. I have seen so many interpretations and opinions on what is this and what is not that, as have many folks. I just thought it would be nice to have a clear, defined "bar" if you will, that if one jumps over, then he has it. If not, then he does not.
I guess what i am trying to do here, and probably rather poorly, is to establish a finish line. If indeed this is a race, and I believe it is, how do we know if we won, or even completed the race if we don't know where the finish line is, or what it looks like, or can't even describe it so everyone agrees?
I did not start this topic to open the proverbial can of worms. Maybe I have done so anyway.
I just want to know some answers like: Is my earth battery OU? FE? If so...why? If not, why not?
I have the feeling that I might regret bringing this up.
Bill
***Edit*** Ok I have another thought. Your term "renewable" might work for some things and maybe most. It is a good term. Ethanol made from corn that once burned, can be renewed. I agree 100%. But, back to the earth battery. (for example) I don't have to "renew" anything. The power keeps coming and coming with no further requirement on my part. Nothing is "used up". It is not energy from nowhere as we think we know how/why it works. So, I am not sure renewable applies in all cases and maybe this one specifically.
Please notice that I left out "perpetual motion" in this topic. That is yet another "can of worms". I once had an argument with a physics professor about this subject. He said PM is impossible and can never happen. I said, ok but what about the atoms there in your desk, and the electrons that are orbiting. He said...ummm...well.....that is still not PM. I asked...why not? He never gave me an answer. So, to be clear, I am not talking about creating energy out of nowhere, but tapping into both known, and unknown energy systems, which would not violate known physics laws.
poynt99:
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
Pirate88179:
--- Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 06:18:47 AM ---poynt99:
Thanks for posting. Yes, it is certainly a can of worms. I can't tell you how many topics this comes up in, again and again. But, this is exactly my point. If I develop a device that does "X", and then claim FE or OU, folks would come out of the woodwork and say things like, that is not FE, you had to pay for the transistor, etc.
All I am asking for here, and I know it is not a small task, is to agree or almost agree on a set of parameters to define that which we are all searching for. I understand your point, trust me I do. I have seen so many interpretations and opinions on what is this and what is not that, as have many folks. I just thought it would be nice to have a clear, defined "bar" if you will, that if one jumps over, then he has it. If not, then he does not.
I guess what i am trying to do here, and probably rather poorly, is to establish a finish line. If indeed this is a race, and I believe it is, how do we know if we won, or even completed the race if we don't know where the finish line is, or what it looks like, or can't even describe it so everyone agrees?
I did not start this topic to open the proverbial can of worms. Maybe I have done so anyway.
I just want to know some answers like: Is my earth battery OU? FE? If so...why? If not, why not?
I have the feeling that I might regret bringing this up.
Bill
***Edit*** Ok I have another thought. Your term "renewable" might work for some things and maybe most. It is a good term. Ethanol made from corn that once burned, can be renewed. I agree 100%. But, back to the earth battery. (for example) I don't have to "renew" anything. The power keeps coming and coming with no further requirement on my part. Nothing is "used up". It is not energy from nowhere as we think we know how/why it works. So, I am not sure renewable applies in all cases and maybe this one specifically.
Please notice that I left out "perpetual motion" in this topic. That is yet another "can of worms". I once had an argument with a physics professor about this subject. He said PM is impossible and can never happen. I said, ok but what about the atoms there in your desk, and the electrons that are orbiting. He said...ummm...well.....that is still not PM. I asked...why not? He never gave me an answer. So, to be clear, I am not talking about creating energy out of nowhere, but tapping into both known, and unknown energy systems, which would not violate known physics laws.
--- End quote ---
@ poynt99:
I quoted my previous post because I added an edited part (addition) that I think addresses the renewable point you were making. Again, I agree, renewable is off the table. What do you think of my earth battery example as quoted here?
Bill
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version