Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83955
  • *Latest: serials

  • *Total Posts: 525618
  • *Total Topics: 15645
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: Arguments against Muller design  (Read 60281 times)

Offline infringer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 800
    • mopowah
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2011, 07:21:57 AM »
There is an all you can take smorgasbord of electricity for our petty little planet and all other intelligent bearing planets at the rate that we find planets even capable of that it is certain ... The energy if it is only converted is technically infinite so to speak as it can never be destroyed. To tap it we can make resonant coils to capture that radiation it is being worked on. A 7 um coil can capture the infrared spectrum 24/7 and that is because that is the wavelength of the infrared spectrum  actually between 5 and 10 um there are two collages working on this and have proven it works just collect IR energy from antenna what other wavelengths are in the universe and what is there wavelength think of the videos you see of NASA recording the sounds of space there are some amazing sounds so if we could tune coils to other wavelengths I would assume we could capture energy from them as well! Again this is just theory but rather interesting I think there is another wavelength that we are not able to measure capture or use quite yet as well it would only make since to me because in order for some of the quantum states to exist in entanglement there must be some kind of communication between the two atoms or group of atoms to relay information a type of instant communication. I like the theory of superlight myself it almost appears as if this could really be a force at play here it is likely a faster then the speed of light communication once uncovered it will revolutionize the planet.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #30 on: May 22, 2011, 07:21:57 AM »

Offline nueview

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2011, 08:02:08 AM »
I think if you look up nuclear power plants that as i you will find they are classified as first order perpetual motion machines or devices.
I do not argue that energy as a whole is not set at some fixed volume for the entire system but this is not to say it cannot be directed to perform work or gathered simple examples of this are electrostatic machines and there power flows which are local area actions which can be repeated and not have equal volume for the force used to generate the action.
In short all things do not appear equal or you would not be able to lift the ball to bounce it in the forst place as it would require more work against the field than the ability to overcome the field action and there would be no motions in the entire system at all.
Because we do not fully understand the system at this time that is no reason to say that it is not possible but rather it is expressing only a point of view that is well enforced.
Martin


http://www.youtube.com/user/geshbeddin?feature=mhee

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2011, 10:43:31 AM »
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding... I work about Heins theory and I work in secret with another design of this transformer. The curious effect I have noticed recently is when (in special configuration of course) I short the secondary the input current decrease rather than increase, I have placed a light bulb in serie with the primary: the light intensity decrease also, more test with voltmeter and ammeter still needed for confirming this effect, actually my conclusion is the reaction can help the action (reactionless "effect"), remenber the CEMF is energy also, this maybe the key of OU in my advice. I am more and more sceptic about "laws of thermodynamcis", some old "laws" about 200 years... Or a transformer (or any magnetics device), is open system, it pump into infinite source like time, gravity, or environement...
A question about black hole, if the energy cannot be destroyed or created, where the matter/energy goes when they are eaten by a black hole ? It seems they are disapearing into nowhere...  :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2011, 10:43:31 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2011, 11:48:14 AM »
A copy of one of my message in another section:
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding... I work about Heins theory and I work in secret with another design of this transformer. The curious effect I have noticed recently is when (in special configuration of course) I short the secondary the input current decrease rather than increase, I have placed a light bulb in serie with the primary: the light intensity decrease also, more test with voltmeter and ammeter still needed for confirming this effect, actually my conclusion is the reaction can help the action (reactionless "effect"), remenber the CEMF is energy also, this maybe the key of OU in my advice. I am more and more sceptic about "laws of thermodynamcis", some old "laws" about 200 years... Or a transformer (or any magnetics device), is open system, it pump into infinite source like time, gravity, or environement...
A question about black hole, if the energy cannot be destroyed or created, where the matter/energy goes when they are eaten by a black hole ? It seems they are disapearing into nowhere...  :D

Offline neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »
@Khabe .It is interesting that you met Bill Muller . You say that he never claimed That the Muller Dynamo was Overunity .Then what was his purpose .These days we have cheap inverters to change one type of power/ voltage to another .Why would he go to all that trouble to build what is in effect a rotary converter . Was he also trying to reinvent the horse and cart? I f he was in fact trying to devellop an overunity machine , why would you bother to meet him .There are a lot of us here trying to do the same thing , and you do not seem keen to meet any of us ? So Mullers machine did not work . And Romero`s machine did . And Romero` s machine goes "missing" . What conclusion can we reach here? All I am saying is that it seems strange to me .

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2011, 01:57:15 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline khabe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2011, 02:58:36 PM »
@Khabe .It is interesting that you met Bill Muller . You say that he never claimed That the Muller Dynamo was Overunity .Then what was his purpose .These days we have cheap inverters to change one type of power/ voltage to another .Why would he go to all that trouble to build what is in effect a rotary converter . Was he also trying to reinvent the horse and cart? I f he was in fact trying to devellop an overunity machine , why would you bother to meet him .There are a lot of us here trying to do the same thing , and you do not seem keen to meet any of us ? So Mullers machine did not work . And Romero`s machine did . And Romero` s machine goes "missing" . What conclusion can we reach here? All I am saying is that it seems strange to me .

We never met, just talked. Muller had his own understanding about free energy,  he admitted his device does not self run, ibid he believed it will run ... just something need to be done a little bid more ... or even no self run - he hardly believed this device will come in use in cooperation with other sources of energy. We talked in nineties when I was building similar machine for ...School. Honoured Mr. Muller was fairly resentful because this machine meant as sample as "new era perpetuum mobile", like exhibit. I tried to reassure this old man that student will surely make a lot of tests with and will make their own conclusions.
cheers,
khabe

Offline ElectronManipulator

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2011, 05:31:02 PM »
A copy of one of my message in another section:
What about BEMF ?, in a transformer when you load the seconndary it produce a CEMF that oppose the primary EMF (lenz law), this CEMF is energy also !!! but out of phase by 180°, so the secondary fight the primary rather than aiding.

Are you handy with electronics?

If you are, or know someone who is, you should phase match, and add the signals.

If you need info on how to do this, look up, and read, genset pairing or solar/wind system grid-tie information.

Often a solar systems output (after inversion) is AC which is out of phase with the POCO (Power Company), so grid-tie inverters phase-match.  This will allow you to take out of phase signals and add them together without the loss of a diode drop and DC conversion.


*****************

@Mr, UK

Also, I see many folks over-using diode bridges (bridge rectifiers).  When you are dealing with such low power generation, why THROW AWAY a volt and a half on each bridge??

Read up on capacitive rectification, and using MOSFETs as IDEAL (no drop) diodes.

I am by no means a know-it-all, but I see simple errors all over that could help push people a little closer to their goals on this site.

Another thing to look into would be small signal power harvesting.  It would allow you to charge caps with VERY LOW power.

You can then use a switch (optical or HALL effect) to activate a pair electro-magnets to get the boosts you need to overcome magnetic cogging.

If you have a few mA and mV to spare in this dynamo, you can charge a capacitor.  Use a XLP PIC to monitor the cap voltage and when at proper levels, attach the load, and pulse the electromagnets.  After a few cycles, disconnect the load and continue along your battery switching routing (using the PIC to handle this also) and charging the capacitor for the next cycle.

Doing this will give you MINIMAL cogging.

If you are going to continue using diodes,  use germanium diodes instead of silicon, you will gain .2v instantly on your system.  They have a lower diode drop than silicon.  This will give you what you need to use the harvesting technique.

A vibrating piezo can charge a large cap over time with these harvesting circuits.

You should really look into this.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2011, 05:31:02 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Tudi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #37 on: May 23, 2011, 07:28:03 PM »
+1 to your troll diploma on the other threads
Again. You are misunderstanding the concept of OU. Imagine that you need 3 barrels of oils to produce 100 barells ( refine crude oil). That is OU. There is no magic in this, you just need to find the process of refinement...

Offline nueview

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2011, 08:59:49 PM »
I think i would tend to agree with the statement that it is a process as over the years i have seen and read up on many processes used by big business for either fuel savings or energy savings that are not used by the general public nor are they promoted this is mainly due to the flow of money but that aside most people do not pick up on these tips when they are put forward either. that does not mean it is not possible.
if a train can move a ton of freight 350 miles for a gallon of fuel why can't a car do the same?  PROCESS plain and simple.
how many times on this forum have you heard discussed the phase shift of energy.
you need good discussions before you can do things that are not readily excepted such as you cannot do other than established physics with established physics. then learn the other process in short we need to be open minded.
Martin

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #38 on: May 23, 2011, 08:59:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #39 on: May 24, 2011, 06:47:16 AM »
@TommyLReed
Quote
The amount of energy that is present before and after work is the same (scientist say energy is conserved). For example, let's say you drop a ball. Scientists can measure the energy before, during, and after the fall. The amount of energy remains constant throughout the process. Likewise when an object is thrown or a spring released or something is burned, the energy can be measured. This is the reason behind the first law of thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another; scientists have found that the amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.
I think it is important to understand the contradiction in the statements above, all this nonsense relies on the fact that energy remains constant in a closed system because they consider it a closed system. That is they state that in a perfectly isolated/closed box the energy is constant because the box is closed which is nothing more than stating the obvious. My first question for these scientists would be can you give me one single example of a perfectly closed/isolated system? You see there are no completely isolated  systems that we know of anywhere in the known universe so there argument is pointless.

Quote
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the first law of thermodynamics:
* Energy is conserved.
* The amount of energy in the universe is constant.
* Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
* There is no free lunch.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces more energy than it uses (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the first kind.)

Actually the first law of thermodynamics states---
Quote
"In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced."
and
Quote
In a thermodynamic process, the increment in the internal energy of a system is equal to the difference between the increment of heat accumulated by the system and the increment of work done by it.
You will notice that the first law of thermodynamics relates directly to heat hence the term Thermo(heat)-Dynamic(relating to energy/motion). As such I think all the expressions of the first law you have noted are irrelevant as any expression not related directly with heat energy has no business being lumped in with thermodynamics, which should be obvious. I also think that assuming the amount of energy in the whole universe is constant because of the simple relationship between heat and work is absurd.

Quote
Second Law of Thermodynamics
The following set of statements are various ways of expressing the second law of thermodynamics:
* With each energy conversion from one form to another, some of the energy becomes unavailable for further use.
* Heat cannot flow from a cold object to a hot object on its own.
* It is impossible to convert heat energy into work with 100 percent efficiency.
* You cannot break even.
* It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses. (This type of machine is called a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.)
* The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.
Actually the second law of thermodynamics states---
Quote
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.
Now to me expressions are kind of like opinions and opinions as we know are not facts especially when they have nothing to do with the subject at hand which is thermo(HEAT)dynamics. Take this expression--"The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum", now how in the hell could anyone make such an absurd statement when we have very little understanding of the small part of the universe we can actually see let alone the whole universe-- this is pure speculation. Here is more nonsense--" It is impossible to build a machine that produces as much energy as it uses", now what does this mean--a machine which "produces" as much "energy" as it "uses"?. I can name hundreds of machines which produce more energy than they use like wind turbines,hydro-power and solar power. What could they be talking about? Well they are talking about the same nonsense as they were prior, that is this expression means absolutely nothing unless they put their "machine" in some magical isolated/closed box-- which is insane.

I should make it clear that I believe in the conservation of energy and have no problem with it however I do have issue with unproven theories which rely on magical closed boxes that must exclude all external sources of energy we know as a fact are present everywhere in the known universe. All you have to do is ask the right questions--- give me one example of a perfectly isolated system anywhere, give me one example of any space in the known universe where no forms of energy are present. You see a good theory must hold up under scrutiny and not simply fall apart when the right questions are asked.
Regards
AC

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2011, 02:00:39 PM »
Elecron Manipulator makes a valid point about using germanium diodes rather than Silicon. However, Romero is achieving a huge overunity if he really is lighting that auto bulb he shows in the video with silicon diodes.

I've had great fun over the years building Bedini stuff as well as other similar devices. Bedini has never claimed OU for the monopole energiser itself, only that it conditions batteries which I have found is the case. Like Muller, Romero himself has clearly stated that his device is not a self-runner. Lidmotor's experimental setup is showing that the rotor can spin with very little input power, just as the Bedini monopole can. Can the next person who posts a video of a Romero replication claiming self-running reall be believed?? Of course, because its what some need to believe at face value to spur them on in their quest to achieve self-running. The important thing as has been mentioned before, is that we all have fun building gadgets, especially those that feature magnets and spinning wheels. We all know, that proving to the world that our gadgets actually self-run will take a lot more than simply making the claim with video or two. Those that have the dream, just ignore the naysayers and continue having fun building and lots of it.

Hoppy




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #40 on: May 26, 2011, 02:00:39 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline EMdevices

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #41 on: July 17, 2011, 06:06:10 PM »
Ladies and Gentlemen


I have now been convinced that these videos by RomeroUK are fakes, and I want to thank wattsup for persisting and having patience with me as I worked through the evidence.    I just did not want to accept they were fake and wanted to give Romerouk the benefit of doubt, but facts are facts.  This has really been a test of gullibility, and I have failed.  But that's OK, I'll be more critical next time, I hope!



How they were faked.

1)  Video 1 was faked quite easily by supplying the output rail directly from the input.  I should of acted on my instincts earlier when I noticed that his output voltage was the same value as his input voltage. 

2)  Video 2 was faked by taking these same wires supplying the output rail (wire-X), down through the table cap to a hidden battery, just like wattsup has shown.

3)  Video 3 is not proving anything, it's just a spinning rotor.


So when you had enough of tweaking and can't get that dynamo "tuned" just right, than perhaps you might want to consider the truth.   RomeroUK told us quite clearly it was faked and even apologized.    It really was not his fault, he was just playing a joke on the one guy that was on his forum, but than this was brought to Stefan's attention and it got promoted to a wide audience.   After his confession,  Mr Sterling showed up with the legal accusations and questioning, and Romero became scared and afraid of legal action, so he changed his story and invented a suppression story, and just so his conscience won't bother him any longer, he says he will no longer talk about the dynamo.  He also hates to see people getting banned from the forum because they say his device is faked, because he knows it is, and his conscience is bothering him.

So please, let's all assure RomeroUK  that everything is ok, and that we accept him here without any hatred and animosity.  He is a very knowledgeable experimenter and does good work as you can see.  Besides,  everyone is free to experiment at his own risk on these forums, and you can't be liable for others decisions.  After all he did not even claim OU in the videos, just simply made a video.  It is us who interpreted the video as OU. 


Sincerely,

EM

PS, as an example, in Video 1 we see that wire-X that wattsup talked about, and how it comes to the input side.  This was such an obvious fake.  In video 2 this same wire is routed through the table hole, just like he showed.

Offline Hoppy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4324
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #42 on: July 17, 2011, 06:31:01 PM »
I would like to thank Wattsup for persevering with his video analysis to show conclusively that Romero faked self-running as he admitted.

Hoppy

Offline TommeyLReed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 494
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #43 on: July 17, 2011, 09:08:01 PM »
Why does it take so long to wake up with these free energy scams? I told everyone that this was a total scam in the first place, I did my research a long time ago, and also read Bill Muller claims 20 years ago. What makes anyone think it has changed?

I question some of you so-called engineers today, and you wonder why?

Tom....

Offline gauschor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Arguments against Muller design
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2011, 09:47:35 PM »
After reading the forum where the "proof" for fake is posted I consider it even more fuzzy than the so called "fake" videos.

Besides - Offtopic:
I don't get why some harsh words fell in the overunityresearch.com forum about the way overunity.com is moderated. I personally think that Stefan makes a very good moderator job in here by means of being very patient and open for ideas. I also appreciate a lot, that Stefan does not play "god" in here, even though it's his forum. In most other forums you have 1-2 moderators adding their comments and warnings to any 'pups in the gravel' just for the sake of feeling superior to others.

Not so in here (except you behave really really bad for a long time) - in this board you get: Freedom.

When I first registered in here, I expected many things to be moderated more strictly or some outdated disproven topics to be removed already. But it was this tolerance and openness (aside from the fact that many competent and skilled people are in here too) which kept me in here. As a consequence I've learned lot's of things, and others will too. This relaxed way of moderation may attract disproven or dumb devices as well but they will diminish over time anyways.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2011, 11:30:11 PM by gauschor »

 

OneLink