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

## New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 06:32:28 AM

Title: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 06:32:28 AM
I present this challenge to the OU-skeptics, and those individuals whom subscribe to the mythology of thermodynamic theory.

The following equation describes the energy potential ( in Joules) between two (equal) static charges of opposite polarity.

E = 1/2 CV^2
[ where C is the capacitance of the charged objects and
V is the magnitude of the charge in Volts]

When the objects are 'discharged', the energy is equal to the total potential energy bewteen the two charged objects, minus all applicable losses, as described by the theory of conservation of energy.
--------------------------------------------------------------

You are hereby challenged to define, describe, and/or explain the photolumiscent energy (in the form of photons) released by the discharge, which can exceed the total potential energy between the two charged objects up to or exceeding a power of x10^6.

This is real energy in the form of photons, which can be discretely measured using a photosensitive screen, and (partially) converted into electricity using a photovoltaic cell.

1) Where does this energy come from?

2) how is it considered to be "conservative"?

3) What implications or problems does it reveal with respect to thermodynamic theory?

I look forward to your participation in this discussion,

Sm0ky2

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: fritznien on June 03, 2011, 07:19:57 AM
OK news to me.
as measured by who? and with what equipment? do you have a link?
a million what?
that should be enough questions for now.
i have discharged some wicked caps, got some neat burns on the tools and seeing spots.
didn't notice anything strange in the energy output tho.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 08:27:03 AM
the light is incoherent, eminating in every direction, and in a multitude of frequencies ranging from infrared to ultraviolet. We are (for the moment) ignoring the energy released in frequencies outside of the range of light, as well as heat and sound.

The light energy can be measured as a whole, in lumens, and the energy approximated by comparison with current lighting technology.

or along particular frequency ranges, to obtain a more accurate measurement.

it can be measured using a portion of the exposure area around the 'spark', then calculated cyllindrically at a constant distance around the point of origin, by methods used to measure the energy of lasers.

a prism seperates the light into frequency-bands, corresponding to the index refraction of the glass, and the bands are recorded onto a photosensitive screen, which when examined can be used to determine an approximate number of photon-impacts, across each freqency-band.

A more accurate count can be attained using photomultiplier tubes, or a photodiode array.

The point of this, is to show that across the sparkgap,
the whole of the original (electrical) energy is transmitted to the source (minus losses), and that the light energy created by the spark is not a portion of the original energy.
it is "extra".

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on June 03, 2011, 04:10:49 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multipactor
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 07:14:51 PM
Thank you OTC,

While the multipactor-effect may not pertain to the particular phenomena of this thread, it does help to demonstrate some of the innacuracies in thermodynamic theory.

The over-all purpose of creating this thread, is to share the information of commonly overlooked discrepancies of therodynamic theory, and to show that it should no longer be considered physics "laws", but rather downgraded to a Theory.

Most of the research done in this field pertains to phenomena in the energies of light, heat, electricity, magnetism, and radiation.

A lot of the obstacles we encounter, are due to the acceptance and "religious-like" belief system surrounding Thermodynamic Theory, of standardized academics, and the leaders of the scientific community. Which, in my personal opinion, is non-scientific behavior.

The reason any scientific theory becomes (and remains) a "law", is because it has not yet been contradicted by difinitive experimentation.
When a scientist refuses to engage in, or even examine such experimentation and evidence, he or she has violated the code of
scientific ethics.

The foundations of science, are and have always been centered around experimentation, proof, evidence, skepticism of commonly accepted belief systems, and the search of true knowedge.

As it pertains to the theories of Thermodynamics, many scientists have moved from a scientific-viewpoint, into a religious-like belief system that shatters the very nature of science, and limits the advancement of human knowledge.

It is only those of us who are brave enough to look them in the eye and tell them "the world is not flat!", who can free mankind from this prison.

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: fritznien on June 03, 2011, 07:20:52 PM
Interesting article onthecuttingedge2010, nothing about OU in it, and its about electrons in a vaccum.
outside of a photomultiplier tube i don't think it applies.

sm0ky2 i have a general knowledge of light ,photons,spectrum and energy,power and its
measurement. what i lack is an understanding of how an arc is OU.
it seems to me that you are on the one hand avoiding  any solid information and on the other needlessly
complicating things. if i short out a cap thru an arc how dose any energy get back to source?
why not put the arc in an insulated photon tight container and measure the heat directly?
is there any difference between sources of electricity? my arc welder puts out a great arc.
how do you know these things would sum up my questions.
fritznien

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: sm0ky2 on June 03, 2011, 08:35:03 PM
@ fritz

how the energy gets back to the source, is a matter of design, and has nothing to do with this type of experiment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For the purpooses of measurement of the energy in the system, the electrical energy arriving at the destination is the energy potential between the two seperated charges. This can be converted directly to heat through a load (at a point between the two leads before or after the spark gap) and this energy cooincided to the energy potential of the separated charges (minus applicable losses).

But again, i stress the fact that the light energy released from the actual spark (while proportional to the amplitude of the charge, and the impedence of the medium) is completely independent of the electrical energy of the actual charge. And a measurement of this light energy, when added to the electrical energy of the discharge results in a value greater than the potential energy of the initial seperated charges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Bear in mind, that there are additional energy values released from the spark (referenced above) that are not being taken into account here, in the form of sub-light and hypo-light frequencies, RF, and also soundwaves as a result of the spark. We can discuss the energy value of those emmanations individually, after we resolve the originally proposed problem of the light energy.

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Poit on July 03, 2011, 07:12:51 PM
Hi Sm0ky2,
Thought provoking. Personally I like to point out that scientists (at large) do not understand everything there is to know about magnetism (any scientist worth his/her salt will admit to this) and because of this I do not believe we (humans) can define a finite "law" of thermodynamics when we admit to not know everything about the subject. It's a flaw in basic problem solving.

It would be akin to making a road rule/law and not fully understanding how a 4 stroke engine works, how could we know if the "law" will actually make the roads safe?

Poit
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: fritznien on July 03, 2011, 08:38:55 PM
Hi Sm0ky2,
Thought provoking. Personally I like to point out that scientists (at large) do not understand everything there is to know about magnetism (any scientist worth his/her salt will admit to this) and because of this I do not believe we (humans) can define a finite "law" of thermodynamics when we admit to not know everything about the subject. It's a flaw in basic problem solving.

It would be akin to making a road rule/law and not fully understanding how a 4 stroke engine works, how could we know if the "law" will actually make the roads safe?

Poit
i don't have to know how the engine works, i just have to know how the car behaves.
these are 2 differant things.
when you can show something, anything that defies thermodynamics or COE then your cooking.
remember up til now nothing has, despite the claims.
until then the whitecoats will laugh at you.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Poit on July 03, 2011, 09:09:21 PM
Don't you think its a bit ironic that in the centre of our milky way is a large black hole that the stars (including our own sun) revolves around and in turn our planet revolves around our sun. Why I call this ironic is this, black holes are considered to violate (nearly) all our known laws of physics. (this is by the same people who promote the "laws" of thermodynamics)

So, if it wasn't for something that violates the laws of physics, we wouldn't exist! Think about that for a second!
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: fritznien on July 04, 2011, 12:38:33 AM
Don't you think its a bit ironic that in the centre of our milky way is a large black hole that the stars (including our own sun) revolves around and in turn our planet revolves around our sun. Why I call this ironic is this, black holes are considered to violate (nearly) all our known laws of physics. (this is by the same people who promote the "laws" of thermodynamics)

So, if it wasn't for something that violates the laws of physics, we wouldn't exist! Think about that for a second!
try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Poit on July 04, 2011, 04:29:06 AM
try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien

So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: fritznien on July 04, 2011, 07:41:53 AM
So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands
the only things you know about black holes is what guys like Steven hawking tell you.
they get it from relativity. so far no one has found any holes in GR.
when they do it will be rewritten or superseeded like newtons law of universal gravity.
the point i am making is not that the physics books are perfect, far from it.
the point is you are going to need more than claims to update them.
you need hard repeatable data. not crap in a utube video.
when you have a real self runner, by the hundred, not just some jerk like mylow with a crappy vid and endless mouth.
then you got something.
please note an expert in the field says doing magic tricks for the camera is "BULLSHIT"Penn&teller
he should know.so who are you going to beleave the guys who tell you life will be beautiful all the time and never delivers, or
the guys who actually make things that work. even if not as well as we would like.
fritznien
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: pauldude000 on February 24, 2012, 05:02:17 PM
I am glad to see serious thought being given to such conceptual discrepancies. Many of the problems you see stem from outdated or inapplicable notions to begin with.

Conservation of energy within a system is dependent upon the postulated concept of 'closed systems', and is true only conditionally upon a closed system.

However, I have yet to see any system that is truly closed! Not even ONE!

All real systems are subject to extraneous energy, of one form or another, whether you speak of this extraneous energy as electromagnetic or various field energies. Experiments have been attempted in the past to remove all energy from a system (by cooling to 0 degrees kelvin, I.E. absolute zero), and this led to the discovery of what is called now commonly called ZPE or Zero Point Energy.

I have frustrated the heck out of EE's and physicists before, but am not trying to antagonize anyone.

For the EE's reading, consider this: If an electronic circuit is closed, then explain why anything would need to be shielded from external RF......... ? (A minor 'for instance'.)

For the physicists: Concerning even simple Newtonian physics, the classical models are far too simplified and account for only a small handful of the possible vectors and factors. A magnet holding papers to a refrigerator door is continually doing real work, supporting not only it's own mass, but the mass of the papers against a constant downwards acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec per sec.

By very definition it is "perpetual motion", depending upon a persons definition. I state this as a magnet working against the load of gravity by internal magnetic energy is as close to a closed system as is possible in reality. Perpetual motion is NOT frowned upon in physics OUTSIDE a closed system, as you find with wind generators, solar cells, ocean wave powered generators, and yes magnets, etc., etc.

Many concepts simply fall flat, such as the concept of 'perpetual motion = impossible' since the concept of a 'closed system' is what is flawed.   The closed system hypothesis is as dead as the flat earth theory, and just as inaccurate.

I do not wish this to seem as a rant, which it is not nor is it intended to be anything but a statement of the obvious, so I shall stop here.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: pauldude000 on February 24, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
This is a P.S. for smokey... (Forgot to mention it.... sorry

Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Thermodynamics as a whole does have some value, even if parts of it are flawed or even just plain silly. I can say the same for any branch of science I have perused, to a point. (Some branches in their entirety smack more of religion than science.)

Finding errors in logic is easy, just look for circular reasoning and multiple definitions. You will find numerous examples. That is why I am an amateur EX-physicist, and not an EX amateur physicist.

Prove all things, and kick the garbage to the curb.  ;D

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 24, 2012, 09:26:52 PM
Hello Smokey

This is definitely my favourite subject.  Here's some examples of standard model absurdities.

E=mC^2.  A photon has zero mass.  Therefore - zero x the speed of light squared = ZERO.  Therefore a photon has NO ENERGY

Space is expanding at a uniform rate - yet galaxies collide.

Interaction of particles with each other in a particle accelerator produce myriad forms of virtual particles with a combined mass that far exceeds the the number in the initial interaction.

General relatively determines that there is not enough gravity in a galaxy to hold star structures together.  Therefore they should be unravelling - or general relativity is wrong.

Or dark energy from dark matter is a reality which conclusion is ONLY supported by astrophysicists.  The rest of the science community consider this postulate as somewhat eccentric.

And so on. And so on.  It's a crazy world is the science world.  And what's even crazier is that I speak with absolute authority when I say that 6 collaborators invited every single electrical engineering academic expert in South Africa to a public demonstration of an over unity device - AND NOT ONE SINGLE EXPERT ATTENDED THAT DEMONSTRATION.

So.  Science is NOT led by experimental evidence.  Nor is it founded in logic.  And the joke is that if you question the 'standard model' YOU and not THEY are considered eccentric.

Regards,
Rosemary

In fact here's my blog post on just this subject.
http://newlightondarkenergy.blogspot.com/2010/11/more-on-inconvenient-truths.html

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: pauldude000 on February 27, 2012, 07:09:56 AM
@Rosemary

ltns.

You want to know one of my favorites? The scientific energy/power scam.

You are putting 5 watts in and extracting 45 watts of energy out!!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Hmmmmm..... Watts is not energy, it is power. Energy is measured in joules. Watts are joules over time. I can charge a capacitor with 1 watt of juice over a long period of time, then extract megawatts off in a single pulse. It is all a matter of energy over time.

If you store 1 joule of energy up over enough time to enable a stored 1000 joules, then release those 1000 joules in a few microseconds, then the wattage out is seemingly impossibly huge. The work which can be done with this pulse can also be astoundingly huge in comparison, as it can explode a wire releasing even MORE energy into the system in the form of a chemical explosion, which itself can do more work. The output BEFORE the chemical release caused by the explosion is still the initial 1000 joules. (In the proposed system, you actually have over-unity if you are measuring only the electrical used for the comparison.)

Yet the wattage comparisons would be off the chart in comparison to each other.

Again, wattage is NOT a measure of energy!   :o

Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in the possibility of overunity...... the equation does have to balance. I just have seen no evidence to support the retarded notion of the supposedly... allegedly... 'closed systems' in thermodynamics either. ALL energy comes from somewhere, and when released GOES somewhere, which means the evidence points towards unexplained phenomena....... IE new energy source(s).

Most scientists I have talked to just demonstrate their unwillingness to explore new potential energy sources. (IE do their supposed....  alleged.... JOBS.)
.

It is called 'mental laziness'. It is EASIER to ridicule or condemn then do the work of applying logical thought towards experimentation using scientific methodology to implement a realistic investigation.

Sorry. This actually was a rant I guess.

Paul Andrulis
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 27, 2012, 07:46:49 AM
And likewise @ you too, pauldude.

Very difficult to understand your complaint here.  It seems that you dispute ANY evidence of overunity here...
Most scientists I have talked to just demonstrate their unwillingness to explore new potential energy sources. (IE do their supposed....  alleged.... JOBS.)  It is called 'mental laziness'. It is EASIER to ridicule or condemn then do the work of applying logical thought towards experimentation using scientific methodology to implement a realistic investigation.
... all of which is implied to be unreasonable.

And YET.  Here you show your own 'scepticism'...
You want to know one of my favorites? The scientific energy/power scam. You are putting 5 watts in and extracting 45 watts of energy out!!!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

Are you not perhaps indulging in that mental laziness that you're assuming keeps our academics away.  I say this because you then go on to argue about the extraction and delivery of power that has nothing whatsoever to do with our claim - or indeed with the claim advanced by Sterling related to our mysterious South African inventors.

Here
Hmmmmm..... Watts is not energy, it is power. Energy is measured in joules. Watts are joules over time. I can charge a capacitor with 1 watt of juice over a long period of time, then extract megawatts off in a single pulse. It is all a matter of energy over time. If you store 1 joule of energy up over enough time to enable a stored 1000 joules, then release those 1000 joules in a few microseconds, then the wattage out is seemingly impossibly huge. The work which can be done with this pulse can also be astoundingly huge in comparison, as it can explode a wire releasing even MORE energy into the system in the form of a chemical explosion, which itself can do more work. The output BEFORE the chemical release caused by the explosion is still the initial 1000 joules. (In the proposed system, you actually have over-unity if you are measuring only the electrical used for the comparison.) Yet the wattage comparisons would be off the chart in comparison to each other.

And here

Again, wattage is NOT a measure of energy!   :o

And here
Don't get me wrong. I do not believe in the possibility of overunity...... the equation does have to balance. I just have seen no evidence to support the retarded notion of the supposedly... allegedly... 'closed systems' in thermodynamics either. ALL energy comes from somewhere, and when released GOES somewhere, which means the evidence points towards unexplained phenomena....... IE new energy source(s).

You are assuming that no-one - apart from yourself - understands the basis of computing over unity.  We do.  I assure you.  We all do.  It is the amount of energy measured to have been delivered by a supply source - against the amount of energy measured to have been returned to that supply source and that is dissipated over a workstation on a circuit.  You're equating stored and dissipated energy to the amount STORED in the first instance.  New science and indeed, the experimental evidence on these forums suggests that energy is not so much STORED as RE-GENERATED.  Surprisingly that's a REQUIRED RESULT from the simple application of Inductive Laws promoted by our standard model.  Some excessive corruptions have been introduced by our Kirchhoff enthusiasts that propose that the amount of energy returned and dissipated cannot - between them - exceed the amount of energy first delivered.  But that argument is not only disproved in ALL those claims that breach unity - but is also a REQUIRED CONDITION of Einstein's mass/energy equivalences.

I put it to you that our energy monopolists have done a good job in keeping this OBVIOUS fact from the attention of most of you electronic boffins.  Fortunately they do not arbitrate on fundamental physics.  Or, I should say, that WHEN they arbitrate - there are those with enough sense to ignore that arbitration.  With or without respect.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: pauldude000 on February 27, 2012, 09:27:30 AM
You misunderstand Rosemary, and it may well be my own fault for not wording it properly.

Over-unity is a term developed by scientists as a self negative, and not a term with meaning towards real science. It is a definitions game that is rigged to lose from the start, for the purpose of ridicule towards the uninitiated..

Consider this: You have two batteries in a circuit, of which YOU only switch one, and the circuit switches the other. Both batteries are calculated into the determination of power, and the result is at maximum unity.

Now, define the term unity so as to exclude the other battery, and you get over-unity. The term was created so as to demonstrate the inanity of the user. The user is claiming to create energy from absolutely nothing BY DEFINITION. IE is claiming magic. The very term was rigged for it. I perceive you as a very intelligent person, and both of us know that the equation balances every time. Technically a solar cell would fit the definition except the power source is known.

I am skeptical alright, and more than a little abhorred that science as a whole is willing to stoop so low. This is sophomoric horseplay in my book.

But since they are stooping now to such decidedly un-scientific words and concepts as scientific "consensus" and "debunking" I am not really surprised. (Consensus is a political or legal term, not a scientific term what-so-ever, and is not defined in any scientific dictionary. Technically science itself is and has been against consensus, as the consensus has generally been wrong every time throughout history.) Something is starting to smack more of religion than science.... within science as pertains to groups of scientists considered as a whole.

Perpetual motion also falls into the rigged category, in that the general principal is demonstrated everywhere throughout the entire universe, (systems in motion for extremely long periods of time despite known energy sources maintaining said motion.)  but is applicable only to man-made devices BY DEFINITION.

The definitions are rigged towards personal philosophies and presuppositions and not towards demonstrable evidence. Those scientists willing to even show open sympathy towards the concepts, or those using them, are ridiculed and castigated by those whom through their own actions declare themselves as the zealous protectors of the true faith.

To those doing these things I have this to say (not you Rosemary, I have read many of your posts, and this does not apply to a great many others here, amateurs, actual physicists, and E.E.'s alike.)..... Guess what? .... Science isn't a religion and doesn't NEED you to defend anything. Debunking has nothing to do with science but leaves the definitive taste of defense of dogma and doctrine. You demonstrate your own ego and nothing more. ANYTHING can be faked, just watch a movie sometime...... Fake nuclear blasts on TV will not make Hiroshima go away, and unless you know everything, in the amount of knowledge you do not know, many UNEXPLAINED things remain.... AND.... Scientific terms and definitions should be for the ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE... NOT.... for ridicule and debasement. I will state that you self appointed debunkers have provided at least one good thing though... A laugh. All this time I thought science was the search for truth.. Silly me.

Rosemary, I am on the side of you and everyone here that is actually searching for new power sources, or that finds interesting new things or poses new concepts (even though I may or may not agree with any particular one.). The people here, through their works, postulations, hypothesis, and theories actually demonstrate themselves to be ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, ridiculed by a sea of fanatically religious zealots using definitions and prestige as veritable whips.

(I think I have just become ostracized and banned as anathema by several groups....  ;D  Ooooops! If the shoe fits they can collectively just wear it. I am tired. Tired of lies and deception.)

Paul Andrulis

Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: pauldude000 on February 27, 2012, 09:49:58 AM
@Rosemary

I forgot one thing. I remember you having discovered something interesting, but remember nothing more about it. I am puzzled though as to why you thought I attacked your claim?? (I do not even remember what your claim is.) Who are these South Americans you referenced? On this I am lost.

I was responding in agreement to your statements in line with the topic of this thread, and added some of my own.
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on February 27, 2012, 10:38:25 AM
@Rosemary

I forgot one thing. I remember you having discovered something interesting, but remember nothing more about it. I am puzzled though as to why you thought I attacked your claim?? (I do not even remember what your claim is.) Who are these South Americans you referenced? On this I am lost.

I was responding in agreement to your statements in line with the topic of this thread, and added some of my own.

Dear Paul,

LOL.  I am DELIGHTED that you're actually on this side of new science.  I was rather perturbed that you were not.  But the fault is NOT yours.  It's mine.  I'm a something of a pedant and a literalist - if there is such a word.   :o   The irony of it is that I continually indulge in sarcasm and SELDOM recognise it when others do.  Abject apologies Paul.

Enough said.  You're right.  Science is 1 part experimental evidence - 90 parts belief - and 9 parts assumption.  It will be really nice when it becomes 99 parts experimental evidence and 1 part assumption.  Regarding the reference to South African (SA) - sorry - I was referring to a new discovery that's got a direct battery supply to electrical application - at 5 Mega Watts.  But no details are available - apparently.  I know nothing about this other than as reported by Sterling Allen.  Very Intriguing.  They're using precisely those inductive principles and letting the one battery simply recharge the other with a zero discharge.

I rather hoping that the application marries to an early schematic that we put out some years back.  It was open sourced - so the hope is that we can challenge any attempts at patenting this.  We'll see.

Take care Paul.  And far be it from me to antagonise ANYONE who is supporting these energy drives of ours.  So.  Ignore my previous post and lets keep rallying.  lol  There will never be enough of it in my book.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Title: Re: A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory
Post by: parisd on March 10, 2012, 07:45:51 PM
Rosemary,
I would be pleased to attend to the next overunity demonstration in Cape Town and to exchange with enthousiasts in the cape town area and to hear about existing prototypes.
Tks
Dennis