Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Discussion board help and admin topics => What is Over Unity and Free Energy => Topic started by: firda on January 04, 2012, 07:04:22 PM

Title: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 04, 2012, 07:04:22 PM
Hi everyone, I am new here. My friend pointed me to this community from "free energy" topic elsewhere. I'd like to believe, it is possible, but I could not so far. Nobody gave me a proof, but so many false videos. I'd like to believe, but after wasting so much energy, I am so sad. This forum is so huge, that I was unable to find any proof myself.

Will anybody help me? Note that I was studying on Mat.-Phys. Faculty of Charles University in Prague.
Thx
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 07, 2012, 11:53:52 PM
Well, no reply :'( I'll try to translate what I wrote here (http://forum.zeitgeistmovement.cz/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=360&p=2962#p2962):

...As I remember it, the moving electron creates a magnetic field and changing magnetic field pushes the electrons to move, creating electricity. All of this acts as that electrons are trying to compensate for the change and thus act against it. This perfectly explains the el.-mag. conversion and why it cannot produce more energy.

The law of conservation of energy has not been violated yet, but notice the condition of symmetry, speaking of time. Quantum mechanics knows the various oddities, such as principle of uncertainty. Furthermore, remember the unity of space-time, still nothing against time-travel... There are also "clouds of particles," when it appears in several places at once. Using this knowledge could lead to a violation of the law of conservation of energy and allow increasing the energy indefinitely. The existence of this universe also suggest that it must be possible somehow.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 11:31:21 AM
Does anybody know P. Pantone geet plasma reactor/motor?
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 14, 2012, 03:52:16 PM

Long time I have not posted here: Are you an univertsy student ?


In my humble opion: search after resonance effect, Q amplifying factor (know as antenna gain):
All technology is Tesla derived:


1) Rotoverter/Transverter of Hector Perez
2) Magnetic Resonance Amplifier of Joel McCLAIN & Norman WOOTAN
    And Gregory HODOWANEC.
3) TPU of steven Mark (several theory about this but if I remind correctly one include LCR resonance)


You will find this exotic but very interting !!!


1) RF science special with LCR and Q factor stuff.
2) Rotating magnetic fields sometime play a role. (especially in Time and Gravity distortion).
3) Read (even is this a little bitchy) Rotoverter document (Dan Combine, Hector's Post Vol 1 to 6, Panacea-Bocaf Website).
4) Reread more (I have read those pdf dozen of times before to start to understand something)...
6) In my opinion: avoid magnet motor with only magnet like Perendev (until you want a good brake)
    Avoid gravity wheels and all "Newtonian"/linear type of device) ,Gravity wheel with floater, etc, etc...
    OU is not linear and not symmetrical, Asymmetry have the best chance to OU !
7) Electromagnetic is for me a door for OU and LCR resonance is the key...
8 ) According to Hector theory, Resonant like stuff comply with law of thermodynamic but recycle energy infinitely:


For this, three mains "source" of energy:


A) Ambient RF including the "Thermal Ambient"  (so called waste heat)...
B) Gavity distortion (Antigravity like UFO).
C) Time  distortion (Time travel, variable time density).


[ Very exotic (use discernment here).
D) Multidimensional travel (like stargate stuff).
E) Materialization of the stuff that you think in your head...
F) PK and paranormal effect...]


Those, are unlimited in nature and perfectly recyclable...
Again, in my opinion this is the best theory to allow OU and energy conservation...
Here a project (sorry it's in French but some link are in English) that I work currently.


http://www.magnetosynergie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=266


Hope it helps.
SRM.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 05:50:32 PM
Thank you for your answer. I am not a student any more, I am 30 years old and am actually a programmer (Informatics were integrated into MFF UK (http://www.mff.cuni.cz/toUTF8.en/))

Resonance, as I understand it, should allow energy transmition. Every object has its own frequency. Sending energy of such frequency (or multiplied by integer factor) causes resonance effect, which means acceptance of the energy stream. Different energy would pass away. Sound with correct frequency (tone) could destroy a wall, but first, you must know the correct frequency to achieve resonance effect. Soldiers could make a bridge moving/waving when they all use the correct footstep-tempo. etc.
But this does not seem to lead to increased energy.

I'll check the rest occasionally, but my time is limited. So, is there any proof? Any working how-to? Anybody has working free-energy device that was checked, proved and double-checked to be working indefinitely?
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 14, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
If you have a good oscilloscope that can display both Channel 1 and Channel 2 and their product, you can build a FLEET prototype for less than US$10.  Tune it and absolutely prove for yourself and all your professors that the average output power can be greater than the average input power.  In other words, the coefficient of performance COP can be greater than 1.
 
The first FLEET prototype achieving COP > 1 was demonstrated in Hong Kong in July 2010.  Since that time, two workshops have been run at Hong Kong University; over 100 thousand visitors saw it at the various inventions shows, Prof. Steven Jones of BYU improved it and has a thread in this forum showing that he achieved a COP = 8; over a dozen teams have been trained to produce such FLEET prototypes; a Taiwan Company plans to have a product based on this technology.
 
I am reproducing some information here but you should go to the overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench to have the full information.  The extra energy comes from the surrounding - I used the terms Lead-out or Bring-in to show that such devices does not violate the Law of Conservation of Energy.
 
I do not treat myself as the inventor of such technology.  It was the Divine Revelations from the Almighty.  We must use such knowledge for the good of the entire human race.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 07:48:05 PM
I work here: http://levelna.cz/eng/
I can easily get the two-channel oscilloscope.
Do I need to register at overunityresearch.com? Could you give me direct link not to search for it?
So, how does this work? It consumes radiation from TV/radio/wifi etc.? Will that work anywhere, especially in pure nature?



Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 14, 2012, 07:55:36 PM
Quote
I'll check the rest occasionally, but my time is limited. So, is there any proof? Any working how-to? Anybody has working free-energy device that was checked, proved and double-checked to be working indefinitely?


Beware: I'am not talking about a how to working FE device, I have not that pretension, I give you just some "tips" to start and avoid to lose your time/money, it's only my opinion, to explore resonance stuff for OU.


When L and C are in resonance you have a voltage across them by their Impedance Z, in resonance (and especially with high Q and in series) this voltage can be many time the input voltage with the same current (controlled by the load for EX a Resistance)... Debunker speak about that the current and voltage are not in phase (PF = 0), but they forget if you extract by a transformer or by Transverter diode plug the power become real (PF = 1), if you put a load at the secondary side of the transformer this is not BS power anymore...


Tips to obtain high Q: you must have a big inductance before a capacitance and a low R as possible (in the circuit), when loaded, beware the inductance of the transformer droop with load and become more and more like a straight wire (like R) so the foxy trick will be to have C small as possible and rising frequency, avoid saturation of the core sufficiently to allow the resonant rise and a Gain...


Hope it helps...
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 08:09:17 PM
Uff, I'll have to review my english and my GCE (you'll probably understand that as high-school final exam) from physics, I didn't like that at all, second most complicated question.... but... maybe... God had a plan with me :D
I'll try to absorb that and talk it through with our HW guru :D
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 14, 2012, 08:46:23 PM
I work here: http://levelna.cz/eng/ (http://levelna.cz/eng/)
I can easily get the two-channel oscilloscope.
Do I need to register at overunityresearch.com? Could you give me direct link not to search for it?
So, how does this work? It consumes radiation from TV/radio/wifi etc.? Will that work anywhere, especially in pure nature?

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=114.0 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?board=114.0)
 
There is enough information to cover the three Divine Revelations.  We can get energy from Still air.  We can get energy from Gravity.  We can get energy from the orbiting electrons.  FLEET uses the energy from the orbiting electrons.
 
The technique is to use Pulse to get a high emf in an appropriate resonance LCR circuit.  The Pulse was provided by the transistor (e.g. 2N2222) in a Joule Thief Circuit.  In a normal transformer, the rate of the flux change in the Primary and the Secondary are the same.  WIth rapid pulsing, the secondary can have a much higher flux change.
 
The textbook explanation of resonance is wrong.  The textbook explanation of resonance is that no external energy comes into the resonance system.  The proof that such an explanation is wrong was the placing of a cup to a speaker driven by a signal generator.  If the frequency is right and the cup is 1/4 wavelength, the resulting sound is much louder throughout the whole room.  The textbook explanation is that somehow the sound is reflected and there is no energy increase.
 
The Lead-out or Bring-in energy theory says that some of the random molecular motion energy of the air molecules are brought-in.  There is no violating of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Please study the full information at the ltseung888 bench.
 
May the Almighty guide you in the study.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 08:57:18 PM
I hope my brain will not burn itself if that's all true :o
Thx
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 14, 2012, 09:20:59 PM
You're right, even for me is weird but, Why not ? You can't judge till we have replicated by ourselves !!!
Nature have a lot of surprise !!! (Sorry for my English, I'am French native.)


Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 14, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
As I said in my second post
The existence of this universe also suggest that it must be possible somehow.
I hope you helped me to find it after my looooong search for it ???
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 15, 2012, 04:36:16 PM
As I said in my second postI hope you helped me to find it after my looooong search for it(http://www.overunity.com/file:///C:/Users/Jen/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif)

 
Please learn and discuss with your professors and fellow students the following:
 
 
1.     The Instantaneous Power is equal to the product of the Instantaneous Voltage multiplied by the Instantaneous Current.  It does not matter whether the circuit is DC, AC or Pulsed.
 
2.    Use Channel 1 of your oscilloscope to measure Instantaneous Voltage.  Use Channel 2 to measure the resistance across a One Ohm resistor (Instantaneous Current).  Make sure that your oscilloscope has the multiple function.  Channel 1 * Channel 2 will give you the Instantaneous Power.
 
3.    Make sure that your Oscilloscope have the save function that can save picture (BMP files) and data (CSV files).  Use EXCEL to examine and play with the data in the CSV file.  Obtain the average of Ch1*Ch2.  Obtain the positive and negative only area of ch1*Ch2.
 
4.    Play with the above three steps until you are absolutely confident that your technique is perfect.  Most of the students and engineers in Irvine, USA did not master this at the beginning and got totally confused with the testing.
 
5.    Build a Joule Thief Circuit.  Google “Build a Joule Thief” to get the details.  Repeat multiple times until you mastered it.
 
6.    Wind a two wire coil on the toroid of the Joule Thief until it covered the entire toroid.  You effectively have two secondary coils.
 
7.    Use only one secondary coil first.  Put a LED and a one ohm resistor as load.  Treat that as Output Power.  Use Steps 1-3 and display the bmp file and the calculated Output average power.
 
8.    Use the battery side of the Joule Thief circuit.  Put in a one ohm resistor.  Use Steps 1-3 and display the bmp file and the calculated Input average power.
 
9.    If the result of 7 and 8 showed overunity (COP>1), you are lucky and congratulate yourself.
 
10. If you have not achieved overunity, you need to do tuning.  That may involve changing the holes on the breadboard; changing the length of wires; changing the one ohm resistor to two ohms or more; adding capacitors or changing the number of turns and using another toroid ring.
 
11. If you really have difficulty with 11, I can send you a tuned FLEET.  You must have demonstrated Steps 1-10 on the Internet before I send you a tuned one.  Even a tuned FLEET will change its characteristics due to shipping.  The bad experience and the resulting frustration stopped me from shipping any tuned FLEET to unproved groups or individuals.
 
You may have a working FLEET prototype demonstrating overunity with your oscilloscope in the Near Future - Year of the Dragon.  You may be drinking and enjoying the Divine Wine.
 
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 16, 2012, 07:05:26 PM
So, i did a bit of searching. I'll have to check for those BMP+CSV, but my HW-colleague just obtained new oscilloscope/analyzer which seems to have these functions (it will take at least a week before I can return to my job-place/room).

P=U*I no doubt, but Joule Thief produces high spikes, right? Oscilloscope/analyzer has its limits as sampling frequency.
Isn't this all a problem of measurement?

Has anybody ever measured total input power (during the process of creation) and total output power
and proved, that measured total output power was greater than total input power ever put into it during the whole process?
This could be done by using three batteries, charge one, use it to start it up, recharge two empty batteries from it and the proof is done.

P.S.: Please, do not treat my reactions as "Hey, you stupid, this can never work!" but as "I appreciate your work and time, but my time is limited too and I have to do some selection first, Thank you".
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 17, 2012, 12:11:22 AM
So, i did a bit of searching. I'll have to check for those BMP+CSV, but my HW-colleague just obtained new oscilloscope/analyzer which seems to have these functions (it will take at least a week before I can return to my job-place/room).

P=U*I no doubt, but Joule Thief produces high spikes, right? Oscilloscope/analyzer has its limits as sampling frequency.
Isn't this all a problem of measurement?

Has anybody ever measured total input power (during the process of creation) and total output power
and proved, that measured total output power was greater than total input power ever put into it during the whole process?
This could be done by using three batteries, charge one, use it to start it up, recharge two empty batteries from it and the proof is done.

P.S.: Please, do not treat my reactions as "Hey, you stupid, this can never work!" but as "I appreciate your work and time, but my time is limited too and I have to do some selection first, Thank you".

You are right in quoting the battery charger.  Please go to the excellent on-line book by Patrick Kelly.  http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/ (http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/)
 
In Chapter 5, he described my FLEET device – even better than I could.  He already applied it to produce battery chargers. 
 
You can also read the huge Joule Thief Thread in this forum.  Many have done the battery charging operation but few have good oscilloscopes to do the Power Measurements.
 
Once you mastered the oscilloscope measurement technique, you could then build the FLEET prototypes and tune them to achieve COP >1.
 
If for any reason, your FLEET prototypes fail to achieve COP > 1, I shall help you to tune once you have the bmp and csv files.  As I mentioned, as a last resort, I could send you a tuned FLEET prototype.  The only requirement is that you disclose the detailed testing information openly on the Internet so that all can benefit.
 May you become one of the Servers of the Divine Wine
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 17, 2012, 12:36:39 AM
Thank you, I finally see that I AM in good hands.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: void109 on January 17, 2012, 02:39:46 AM
Hi Firda,


Strangely, I too am a software engineer that got sucked into these forums years ago, first lurking, then posting and finally building myself.  To date, and I still lurk, I have seen no definitive proof, but there are several projects floating about that have yet to be 'debunked'.  I stopped building maybe half of a year ago, feeling a bit disillusioned.  But it's been a wonderful learning experience.


The notions presented above are one of those hopeful projects I was referring to - the data so far is compelling.  If you are replicating yourself and are new to working with electrical test equipment, as I was, be cautious when using oscilloscopes to test the circuits presented in these forums, as they often produce high frequency high voltage outputs and you can easily damage your oscilloscope.  Both of mine have rated voltages of 600 volts, so I have had to be creative with a lot of measurements.


I only posted because I saw you were going to get your hands on a scope, and I recalled destroying my first scope, and wanted to see if I could head that off for you. :)
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 17, 2012, 03:11:06 AM
Hi Firda,


Strangely, I too am a software engineer that got sucked into these forums years ago, first lurking, then posting and finally building myself.  To date, and I still lurk, I have seen no definitive proof, but there are several projects floating about that have yet to be 'debunked'.  I stopped building maybe half of a year ago, feeling a bit disillusioned.  But it's been a wonderful learning experience.


The notions presented above are one of those hopeful projects I was referring to - the data so far is compelling.  If you are replicating yourself and are new to working with electrical test equipment, as I was, be cautious when using oscilloscopes to test the circuits presented in these forums, as they often produce high frequency high voltage outputs and you can easily damage your oscilloscope.  Both of mine have rated voltages of 600 volts, so I have had to be creative with a lot of measurements.


I only posted because I saw you were going to get your hands on a scope, and I recalled destroying my first scope, and wanted to see if I could head that off for you.(http://www.overunity.com/file:///C:/Users/Jen/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif)

Good point.  You have to understand and protect your oscilloscope.  Do the following:
1.    Use low sensitivity initially (scope probes can be set to 10X or 1X etc.).  I used 10X at the beginning.
2.    Build the basic Joule Thief with the 2N2222 and 3 V LEDs first.  The Output Voltage should be less than 10V as shown in the AC setting of the Oscilloscope.  Do not get into the over 100V range.  You can first use a cheap multimeter to check the Output Voltage.
3.    The shape of the Output Power Curve will tell you quite a lot.  If you are close to or at some kind of resonance, you will see standing waves.  That is evidence of resonance.  For all cases of standing waves, my measurements indicated COP > 1 from the accurate average power values.
4.    Use  the high sensitivity (exposing the oscilloscope to potential harm) only after you have obtained the rough estimates. 
5.    I once got into over 1000V and burnt all electronics.  I was lucky – the measuring instrument blew an internal fuse and cost me only $50 to get it fixed.
There is much to learn and take all precautions.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 17, 2012, 12:42:40 PM
Another "problem" with scope it's they're all grounded, with a frequency generator you can have short circuit.


The best to measure anything it's a differential scope, not grounded one...
But it cost much more than standard one...


I have few surprise when working with a frequencies generator, but fortunately not burned my scope (a DSO 2090 USB)...
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on January 22, 2012, 05:24:05 PM
Thank you for your guidance, I'll see what I can do, I'll try to translate this to my HW colleagues to start some testing.
I'd like to express my feelings about it from the spiritual point of view:

Every energy transmission done with good will adds a tiny bonus, thus super-resonance could extract this bonus energy, makes sense to me ;)
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on January 23, 2012, 12:27:57 AM
Hello again, I have found a quote from TinselKoala, when talking in the Rosemary thread about Q and resonance:


Quote
Rosemary, now you need to learn what "Q" refers to in an oscillating RLC circuit. The larger the Q the longer the oscillation from a single "strike"; in other words, the lower the losses to resistance (heat) and radiation (RF) and the longer the energy stays sloshing around in the circuit. Remember my TinselKoil? Using a full H-bridge instead of the half-bridge in your circuit, and with a deliberately high Q, I am able to produce power amplification that you only dream about. By your measurement methods the TinselKoil is so far overunity that I expect the Men in Black to arrive with the suppression tools at any moment.


It tend to support the power amplification theory by high Q circuit... I still building my MRA too...
Good luck !
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 30, 2012, 04:31:40 AM
Please read http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20295#msg20295 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20295#msg20295)
 
This FLEET prototype is unusual in that it provides both negative average Input Power and negative average Output Power.  Negative Power means energy is going back to Source.
 
Thus both Input and Output circuits are "recharging circuits".  Both give back (Lead-out or bring-in) more energy than supplied.
 
Divine wine is tasty.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on January 31, 2012, 06:54:29 AM
I tried to put all information including the set up and analysis in one xls file.
 
Please review and comment.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Bob Smith on February 01, 2012, 03:36:28 AM
Lawrence,
Thank you for posting these data. I understand that replication is difficult due to the need for the circuit to be operating at resonant frequency. Forgive me for asking if this has already been explained, but I'm wondering if...
- it might be possible to produce prototypes with a variable resistor or variable
  capacitor to fine-tune each unit to resonance, perhaps with some kind of
  LED or neon which might indicate that the unit has achieved the lead out
  frequency. ...
Again, perhaps this has been already discussed, or maybe it is unfeasable; but I thought I'd ask...
Continued blessings on you and your work.
Bob
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 01, 2012, 03:57:39 AM
Lawrence,
Thank you for posting these data. I understand that replication is difficult due to the need for the circuit to be operating at resonant frequency. Forgive me for asking if this has already been explained, but I'm wondering if...
- it might be possible to produce prototypes with a variable resistor or variable
  capacitor to fine-tune each unit to resonance, perhaps with some kind of
  LED or neon which might indicate that the unit has achieved the lead out
  frequency. ...
Again, perhaps this has been already discussed, or maybe it is unfeasable; but I thought I'd ask...
Continued blessings on you and your work.
Bob
Dear Bob,
If you have two oscilloscopes, the tuning is easier than you may expect.  The trick is to set both the Input and Output scales to be the same and observe the change in waveforms – especially the Output Power Curve.
You can see a large standing wave when you vary the breadboard positions, resistance, capacitance values or just changing connecting wires.
Once you get that, set your oscilloscope for maximum sensitivity to get the csv files for detailed analysis.
Sometimes you can hit on an exceptionally high COP circuit (or recharging circuit).  Most researchers then keep that confidential for commercial reasons.  They need to earn money and cannot afford to have fun all the time.
My advice is – experiment.  Resonance hunting is still an art.  Luck is important too.  But if you try hundreds or thousands of times, luck will come to you. 
Lawrence
 
*** I added the analysis for the Jan 11 prototype.  It was a slight variation compared with the Jan 16 prototype.  It has COP of 74. 
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on February 01, 2012, 10:00:26 AM

Quote
My advice is – experiment.  Resonance hunting is still an art.  Luck is important too.  But if you try hundreds or thousands of times, luck will come to you.  Lawrence
Not only a mere resonance but a high Q resonator (high L/C and low R) to have Q > 1...
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: pauldude000 on February 02, 2012, 12:38:36 AM
High Q but low Z. Remember that impedance at a given frequency is equivalent to resistance. At resonance, Z should be at a minimum to allow maximum current flow. High Z in effect is like placing a resistor in series.


Edit : should have provided formulas... sorry


Inductive impedance = 2 * Pi * f * L


Inductive capacitance = 1 / (2 * Pi * f * C)


L is in Henries, C  is in Farads, F is in hertz


Instantaneous Voltage and amperage equations: t = time in seconds, v = voltage in volts, and i  = amperage in amps


v = L * (di/dt)     i = C * ( dv/dt)


amount of energy stored:


In the inductance: E = (L* (i squared))/2
In the capacitance: E = (C * (v squared))/2


These you might find useful.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Bob Smith on February 02, 2012, 03:48:16 AM
Lawrence,
Thank you for the advice and encouragement.
Bob
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 11, 2012, 11:26:57 PM
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20682#msg20682 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20682#msg20682)
 
It looks like Sterling Allan has found a Commercial OU product in South Africa.
 
I fully expect it to work.  I am attaching an Output vs Input Power file from the latest FLEET tests.
The average Input Power is Negative.  That is a recharging circuit.  Is it OU by itself???
 
Is that sufficient proof???
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on February 12, 2012, 10:33:47 AM
Hmm look like (again) the looped Rotoverter behavior, the famous hyper-waves when the load detune and tune the circuit itself... (Q vary with the R component of the battery). When the battery is charged the circuit goes Under Unity and start to discharge and when the battery is discharged the circuit goes OU and recharge itself and so on...
UU -> OU -> UU -> OU...
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 23, 2012, 02:55:47 AM
http://pesn.com/2012/02/22/9602042_South_African_Fuel-Free_Generator_Preparing_for_Market/ (http://pesn.com/2012/02/22/9602042_South_African_Fuel-Free_Generator_Preparing_for_Market/)

It appears that Lead-out or Bring-in energy will be proven beyond any shadow of doubt by the coming commercial product.  One of the first batch of 5KW home generators will be delivered to Sterling Allan in Utah. 

Please read the above article carefully and follow the development in the next few weeks. 

I shall write up a possible theory for it.  It is very similar in operation to the group who claimed that they could recharge a bank of 12V car batteries. 

The FREE ENERGY commercial devices actually come from a “not top tier” country (South Africa or Greece).  USA, China, Russia and Japan will have no need to keep their OU inventions top-secret.  We now have non-military devices available for purchase. 

Some with the capability may want to license the technology as soon as possible.

May God Continue to Guide the inventors and the supporters.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 23, 2012, 05:28:46 PM
Possible Theory of the South Africa Company Machine.
 
1.       There is no violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  The observed Output Energy was Lead-out or Brought-in from the surrounding.  The more exact explanation is that the energy comes from the orbiting electrons.
 
2.       There is a DC pulsing circuit of some sort.  With a Sharp Pulsing or a sudden cut-off of electricity, there will be sharp spike of voltage.  This is often called the back EMF (ElectroMotive Force).  Such back EMF can be seen in circuits such as the Joule Thief or FLEET (Forever Lead-out Electromagnetic Energy Transformer).  Any oscilloscope can display such voltage waveforms.
 
 
3.       The normal transformer theory applies to slow AC frequencies – The rate of flux change per turn is the same for the Primary and the Secondary circuits.  Thus a 1:1 transformer will not increase the secondary voltage.  But a 1: N transformer can if N > 1.  This theory does not apply in the spike case described in point 2.
 
 
4.       The classical explanation of resonance is WRONG.  In the textbooks, no energy comes from the surrounding at resonance.  In the particular case of sound resonance, we can have a constant sound source from a signal generator.  If we place a cup of height equal to ¼ wavelength of the frequency next to the Speaker, we can hear a much louder sound anywhere in the room.  The cup cannot be an energy source.  Where does the louder sound energy come from?
 
 
5.       The textbook answer is that the sound energy from the signal generator is entirely responsible.  The louder sound is some kind of reflection or echo.  Some of the sound waves are reflected back so that a louder sound is heard.  But can there be another explanation?
 
 
6.       When we focus back on the experiment in point 4, we find that the louder sound is heard anywhere in the room or in open space – with no reflecting surfaces in sight.  Can the louder sound energy come from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?  Can the resonance set-up change the random movement to an ordered movement?  Can this more ordered movement account for the louder sound energy?  The answer from a vigorous mathematical analysis is YES.
 
 
7.       If the resonance set-up in Sound can lead-out or bring-in the kinetic energy of air molecules, can the resonance set-up in Electrical Circuits lead-out or bring-in the energy of the orbiting electrons?
 
 
8.       We can easily produce resonance electrical circuits via the appropriate use of Inductors (L), Capacitors (c) and Resistors (R).  We call such LCR circuits.  An example is the use of such circuits to tune-in radio stations.  We can see fluctuating waveforms on the oscilloscope even if we use a battery that provides Direct Current (DC).
 
 
9.       With pure resistors, the Power is given by the formula P=V*I where P is the Power, V is the Voltage and I is the Current.  With AC or Pulsing circuit, this simple relationship no longer holds.  We have to consider the phase angle.  If the AC voltage and AC current are in phase (peaks and valleys appear at the same time), the resulting AC Power will be all positive.  If they are not in phase, the resulting AC Power will have a negative component.  This can be observed easily on an oscilloscope.
 
 
10.   The classic explanation for AC Power is that – the positive power represents energy supplied to the load to heat up appliances or motors.  The negative power represents energy fed back to the source (e.g. the electric company.)
 
 
11.   With some pulsing circuits (e.g. FLEET), we can get negative average Input and/or Output Power.  This implies that the circuit is feeding more energy back to the source than to the load.  This extra energy must come from the surrounding as the Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created. 
 
 
12.   We know that some kind of resonance must be involved because we can observe some kind of “standing waves” in the Power Waveforms.  Standing waves are characteristics of resonance.  In a standing wave, there are nodes and antinodes.  The nodes have highest positive or negative amplitude and the antinodes have zero amplitude.  The energy content of two standing waves can be very different even though their average values are both aero.
 
 
13.   It is possible to tune the FLEET circuits so that the Positive Power Waveform Area and the Negative Power Waveform Area for Output Power are both much greater than that for Input Power.  Such circuits typically light up more LEDs and allow longer battery lives. 
 
 
14.   The South Africa Company circuit is likely to be similar to the above described.  They may have found a “Commercial Resonance Condition”.  Large amount of Energy is led-out or brought-in from the environment.  Thus the primary function of their two starting batteries is to get to such a “commercial Resonance Condition” and not act as a supplier of electricity.
 
 
15.   It is obvious that many “commercial Resonance Conditions” are possible.  I am sure that many individuals, teams or organizations will announce their “commercial Resonance Condition” products in the very near future.
 
More detail is available at overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench.
 
There can be many favors of the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Mira on February 23, 2012, 06:02:54 PM
Hi everyone, I am new here. My friend pointed me to this community from "free energy" topic elsewhere. I'd like to believe, it is possible, but I could not so far. Nobody gave me a proof, but so many false videos. I'd like to believe, but after wasting so much energy, I am so sad. This forum is so huge, that I was unable to find any proof myself.

Will anybody help me? Note that I was studying on Mat.-Phys. Faculty of Charles University in Prague.
Thx

I've posted some references here:

Quantum Field Theory predicts infinite zero-point energy in a vacuum
http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=369 (http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=369)

Although Quantum Field Theory is a major research area and has good acceptance, this is not proof that zero-point energy can be converted into electricity.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 23, 2012, 11:52:16 PM
I would like to bring attention to one important fact.
 
The use of the battery is to achieve the "commercial resonance condition".  Once this condition is achieved, energy will be led-out or brought-in from the environment.
 
The battery is NOT the primary source of energy in the FLEET or the South Africa Company devices.
 
Thus we can use the two oscilloscope Power Waveform Comparison Method to find large "standing wave occurances" or "commercial resonance conditions".  Once such a condition is hinted by the Waveform Comparison, we can go into the more detailed analysis with the data in the CSV files.
 
Appreciate the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 23, 2012, 11:59:19 PM
I've posted some references here:

Quantum Field Theory predicts infinite zero-point energy in a vacuum
http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=369 (http://www.open-source-energy.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=369)

Although Quantum Field Theory is a major research area and has good acceptance, this is not proof that zero-point energy can be converted into electricity.

Even though my B.Sc. is in Physics, I do not seek explanation in zero-point energy.  That explanation is too mathematical and abstract.  I prefer the simpler Lead-Out or Bring-In energy Theory.
 
I believe in and can do the mathematics behind the three Divine Revelations:
1.  Lead-Out Energy from Still Air.
2.  Lead-Out Energy from Gravity.
3.  Lead-Out Energy from Electrical Resonance Systems.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on February 24, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
It looks like the Chinese Government did the right thing in declassifying the Wang technology.
 
China must have mastered some better technology already.  It is likely that some such technology will be announced soon.  Most probably at same time scale as the South Africa Company Announcement.
 
The Wang technology is based on magnetic shielding and the coupling of a ferro-liquid rotation with permanent magnet rotation.  Some detail is available at PESN and in Patrick Kelly's ebook.  At one time, it was funded by the Chinese Government and was classified top-secret.
 
Many "Free Energy" devices will be announced soon.  Some will be based on Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).  Some will be based on back EMF of Pulsing Circuits.  There will be no reason to hold back once the first commercial product is out.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: TheCell on February 24, 2012, 08:04:32 PM
@firda
I can not provide a proof of any OU technology . But there are indirect proofs of OU patents.
In the attached document 'special application warning system SAWS' there is mentioned that this program 'saws' was launched to identify various technologies dealing with over-unity devices, anti-gravity devices , only to name a few. The whole list you can see at page 3.
The consequences are :
Flagging an identified SAWS application in PALM to ensure that the application/reexam cannot be allowed an NIRC issued until the flag has been removed.
Don't ask what's a NIRC...
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on March 01, 2012, 08:07:14 AM
Hi All, I had my things to do, but I am back again ready for some testing, but I'd like to ask a question first:
Do I need SOLID wire for the FLEET/JouleThief or can we use MULTI-FIBRE wire? We have a lot of those multi-fibre (copper I think) but SOLID would be a problem.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 01, 2012, 03:12:03 PM
Hi All, I had my things to do, but I am back again ready for some testing, but I'd like to ask a question first:
Do I need SOLID wire for the FLEET/JouleThief or can we use MULTI-FIBRE wire? We have a lot of those multi-fibre (copper I think) but SOLID would be a problem.

Multi-fibre copper wire is OK for building the basic Joule Thief or FLEET.
 
You should follow the "commercial resonance condition" hunting experiments in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench.
 
So far, we can use 1 AA battery to light 5 LEDs for over 24 hours.  The Durell Cell AA battery voltage went from 1.416V to 1.164V.  The original LED hat used two 2023 batteries that lasted < 2 hours.  This result is already worth further experimenting.
 
Start on your first Joule Thief.  Show your photos and oscilloscope csv file results.  Have fun.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 04, 2012, 02:05:15 AM
Conversation with Engineer A
 
A: “Thank you for your help.  We have applied the FLEET technology to one of our products with some success.  There will be more research.  One of our key research team members will be back in US in the next few days.  I would like to bring him over.”
 
Tseung: “When I go back to Hong Kong, I shall leave all my equipment to your team in USA.  That includes oscilloscopes, signal generators, electronic components and educational material.  I would like to make sure that your team will put them to good use.”
 
A: “I have contacted my brother who is a Professor at Singapore University.  Would you go there to give some lectures or seminars? “
 
Tseung: “My goal is to plant the seeds.  I want to share the Divine Revelations.  I am a server of the Divine Wine.  You are welcome to send all my information to your brother first.  If they make the invitation, I shall be happy to go.  My health is still OK but I am getting old.”
 
A: “I do agree with you personally that the hunting of Commercial Resonance Condition is no longer a secret.  The LED hat may not make much money by itself but it can be a powerful promotional tool.”
 
Tseung: “We can modify it to see if we can use ONE AA battery on some of the toys that use Two or Three AA batteries.  If the battery is NOT the main source of energy but helps to get to the Commercial Resonance Condition to lead-out energy from the environment, we may be affecting the toy industry in a big way.”
 
A: “The Recharging of the 12V car batteries will be more significant.  It will revolutionize the electric car industry.  It may also reveal some of the secrets of the South African 5KW electricity Generator.”
 
Tseung: “Let me show you the latest version of the EXCEL analysis of the csv files and the setting of the oscilloscope for highest sensitivity.  You should also read the Prof. Steven Jones thread on how he uses the capacitor in his COP=8 set up.”
 
May the Lord continue to provide the PROOF via the many Wine Servers.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 04, 2012, 02:49:36 PM
Meeting with the Business Owner S
 
S: “Why do you post your experimental results on the Internet?  You have destroyed your chance of getting investment yourself.  And you may be compromising our positions.”
 
Tseung: “I am not interest in fame and fortune.  The experiments are results of Divine Revelations.   Remember the story of Galileo when he introduced the blasphemy that the earth was round.  That blasphemy was violently opposed by the authorities but it helped to launch the scientific revolution.”
 
S: “That was different.  The Church was opposing it.  The Church was preaching that the Earth was the Center of the Universe.  The stories in the Bible were absolute and undeniable truths.  Any opposing idea must be suppressed.”
 
Tseung: “Lead-out or Bring-in Energy threatened the existing Powerful and Wealthy.  Do you think that they will use all their means to suppress such threatening ideas or inventions?  Simple concepts can change the World.”
 
S: “Give example.”
 
Tseung: “China under Mao was Communism.  The simple idea from Mao was that all would contribute according to his capability and all would share the fruits according to his needs.  It did not work.  When everyone received the same reward no matter his contribution, nobody took risks or responsibility.  The economy was essentially dead.  Once the idea changed – reward according to contribution (which at one time was regarded as evil capitalism), the Chinese Economy boomed.”
 
S: “What is the simple idea in this case?”
 
Tseung: “We can Lead-out or Bring-in Energy from the environment.  Examples include Energy from Still Air, Energy from Gravity and Energy from Electron Motion.  This will be the start of a new era in human history.”
 
S: “I still want to keep everything confidential until the product is out.  The PROOF will come out with my product.  That is my simple idea.”

When one sows seeds, some will fall on rocks.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: firda on March 06, 2012, 02:10:14 PM
Hi Again, we have started the game, here you can see some of my notes. Do you have circuit schema to follow? Guidance to which resistor to adjust, where to put scope sond / V/A measurement etc....?

So far we did a test of the (4) SJT/SEC circuit, observed the voltage,
created (1) the main FLEET part and observed the voltage.
What now?
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 07, 2012, 03:59:42 AM
Hi Again, we have started the game, here you can see some of my notes. Do you have circuit schema to follow? Guidance to which resistor to adjust, where to put scope sond / V/A measurement etc....?

So far we did a test of the (4) SJT/SEC circuit, observed the voltage,
created (1) the main FLEET part and observed the voltage.
What now?

Study the xls file in:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20987#msg20987 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg20987#msg20987)
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: one_christian_warrior on March 09, 2012, 07:55:05 PM
 [font=]Canadian Gift to the world[/font]
 
please,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[/font][/size]
could I ask someone[/font][/size]
to build this simple item for me[/font][/size]
it is realitively easy to build[/font][/size]
(I happen to be disabled + unable to build this)[/font][/size]
and should be very cheap [/font][/size]
to reproduce in any scale, any voltage,[/font][/size]
I know that it seems to simple to work[/font][/size]
but I proved that it works with my experament[/font][/size]
it seems too stupidly simple to work[/font][/size]
but it does,,,,,,,,,,,,,,[/font][/size]
this is the Canadian Gift to the world[/font][/size]
please prove that it does not work[/font][/size]
 I would prefere if it was proved before tommorrow even
there must be a way that the multiplication works
if you put power into a wheel turning very slowly
and then take power out of the motor(s)
that spin hundreds of times faster
Subject:[/font][/size] Free energy 4u2[/font][/size]
Please,,,[/font][/size]
Help me, help others, help themselves
we could start a new + improved industrial age
one that not only cauae little mess of pollution
like in the original industrial age brought with it
This one could actually help our environment
 by producing costless to run air and water filters[/font][/size]
we could posibly have every back yard mechanic
coming out with very specialized adaptions
for this free energy box, cube, machine
I will be emailling this to all of our Canadian government
as well as to as many news services that I can
to help get this new technology out in our world fast
and start helping ourenvironment
believe me,,, I know how unbelievable this sounds
I had to repeat the experiment three times
to get a better understanding of how to believe what I was seeing
and then I even thought that I must have dreamed it
and had to repeat the exercise the three times again, about a week later
All I need is, for one person to take this serious
and to actually take the minimal time to build this contraption for me
I feel that this will take off like wildfire
as soon as the world gets a chance to take a look at this
THIS IS A FREE FOR ALL
Perpetual Motion machine
 self generating electricity
 
 Hello,
 I feel both excited and extremely blessed, to be the one that gets to tell the world of this miraculous mechanism. This mechanism is an easy way of letting electricity generate itself, using time and the circumference difference of two pulleys. This means no fuel is needed to operate this, the only things used tomultiply electric power, is the differences in two circumferences and the time it operates. This means that no steady cost of fuel is needed, nor is there any pollution created by the process. That's right, I will tell you how anyone can get electricity to generate itself, without having to own nor having to be contained in an electric wheelchair,,, lol.
I say this because it was my electric wheelchair that helped me think of, and prove to myself that this idea really works. I was in a wheelchair because of an automobile accident, where I was not only paralysed, but I found out that I was the recipient of a rather severe closed head injury. I woke up six months later, to find myself paralysed, with one bum left arm and hand, and unable to talk. I had to first relearn how to speak, to be able to ask what had happened to me, as not only had I lost most all my short term memory, but I could not remember. as well as many other things, like

 Just think of it, We could all have our own stand alone, self powering electricity generators, with only the initial cost of building it,(could be made of junkyard parts). These power manufacturers could be producing a seemingly endless supply of free electricity, all for the cost of upkeep. It is easy enough to build, as all you need is a twelve volt battery, two 12 Volt motors,(one DC + one AC) one large pulley, and at least one small pulley, a belt that fits the pulleys, and the hardware to put these parts together.(nuts + bolts + framing to mount on). This could even be done with 120 volt motors, to produce power for yourself, or to use as an income when you sell it back to the power company.
 
 ((along with electronics, such as an AC and a DC motor, a battery=(not needed), wires, a bridge rectifier and a voltage regulator, of equal voltage))
 ((all of the electronics to run this could be easily built on a simple proto-board))
 
 (you might even be able to use any voltage motors - even 120 Volt)
 ((taking your output from the ac motor leads))
(((as I don’t think the battery is a necessary component)))
It is a very simple mechanism in its workings, as it works by putting power into the motor with the big pulley attached, and you take power out from the motor-(generator) with the small pulley attached. The output motor, or several motors even, the one(s) with the small pulley attached, rotates a lot faster than your input motor,(more speed = increase in power). There is a belt connecting the two,(or more) motors together, that can be as small as you want, depending on if you required size constraints, or as large as you want, to accommodate multiple output generators,,, like in our petrol fuelled power stations, they could be easily modified to run on their own power. I cannot be sure, without having results from tests, but I think that we can gain more power, with every output generator that you add with a small pulley. But there is a warning that I have to give you, of a possible hazardous flaw in this free electricity generating system.
CAUTON,,,,,,,,,,
If this system is allowed to run freely,
without having any outside drain of power,
this system will overcharge itself,
and may even explode.
So, please,,,
be careful when experimenting with this mechanism.
Maybe this should be called an Energy Multiplier,
as you always need at least a little power,
to generate the greater amount of power.

 I believe that we have been given a great gift, one that I think can help the whole world. The thing is,,, that I do not have sufficient funds to get the patent for this invention myself. This is where I wanted the Canadian government to step in and patent this idea, so that our citizens do not have to pay taxes any more,,, lol. I imagine that the royalties from this could not only replace our taxes, but would soon repay our national dept. Especially since, I can see all nations soon making laws regarding the need to convert to this non polluting form of producing electrical energy.
I later found a site on the web that said
 That if you published something on the web
 But did not choose to patent it
 You would open it up to be used freely by everybody
 So,,, this was the choice I decided on
 To put the plans out on the web for all to use freely
 
 Why not let electricity generate itself,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
 PLEASE,,,
 - take this serious, it does work, take a close look at this,,,
- I proved that it does indeed work with my electric wheelchair
 - could I ask you to build a proto-type and prove it works.
 - I cannot build it myself, because of an automobile accident in 96
- which not only paralyzed me, but took all of my manual dexterity
- and ruined my ability to build this device myself

 This is a free source of energy.
 I will demonstrate my gain of power to anyone at any time,,,,,,,,,,,
 I went to the local paper, and submitted an earlier version of my description of this
 But I guess that my description of it, and how I proved that it worked was not good enough, because they did not print my earlier writing and diagram. (not as detailed)
I will send this disciption to the News papers + stations also
to see if they will publish a story about one mans dream
 to give this world a needed gift

 This discovery (a self generating electricity multiplier)
 
 (((I already sent the Canadian government an earlier coply of this, with no reaction.)))
 (((Maybe they would better understand this description)))
 
 Sorry, but I did not have the money to buy, nor do I know of anybody that I can ask to loan me, any kind of Mechano set. What I needed was a toy that is for building things, (like Lego) that has motors and pulleys, so that I could build a prototype of this mechanism. I guess that is one of the reasons that I have decided to send this out to the world, to see if they will prove that it works. But I most want to see if we Canadian's can put this out on the web, so that all people can have their own free electricity generators. Even though I truly hoped that our Canadian government would take this serious enough, to take a patent out on, so that we do not have to pay taxes anymore,,, lol.
 
 I have stumbled upon the
 PERPETUAL MOTION machine
 
 Yes,,,,, and even better than perpetual,,,,
 ,,, this machine actually makes its own power,
 as in – this system uses passing time to gain electrical energy,
 yessss,,, we can let electricity generate itself,,,,
No more dependency on OIL, and the middle east oil supplies,,,
 = and the world says,
YESSSSSSS,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
 Now hold on just a moment,,,
 I know that this is not a true example of perpetual motion,,,
 Because of bearings alone,
 or should I say, the fact that they will wear out eventually,
 That is why I added the word "machine" afterwards
This is a man made machine,
Which only mimics perpetual motion,
As it continues to run, seemingly forever,
Producing electricity as a bonus,

 This is a gift from me to you,,,
 To share with the world,
 a way of gaining free energy,
 seemingly from nothing,
 
 This came to me when I was over visiting at the park,
 I was thinking about how electricity worked,
 and how my electric chair had the ability to charge itself,
 on most any type of downhill run,
 (as it uses an electrical breaking system)
 
 I don't know if you know anything about me or not,
 but learning new things is one of my greatest pleasures
 and,,,,
 When investigating how things work,,,
 I always have to push the limits,,, lol
 not only learning how things works,
 but then tinker with trying to improve them,,,,, lol
 
 I went with the idea of a ten speed bicycle, (something that I knew about)
 Where I wanted to go uphill in tenth gear, (least rotations of the pedals)=motor
 and then downhill in first gear, (most rotations of pedals)=motor
 so, I would go uphill at full speed,
 and then downhill at slow speed
 So,,, now I had something to experiment with,
 now I had measurable tests to do,
 
 I started off with a low battery, (so that I did not have the power to drive all the way up)
 driving up a long steep hill at the park in the full speed position, (tenth gear)
 (until my chair would not go any further, as my battery was dead)
 and then going back down the hill in slow speed, (first gear)
 (not super slow, as I had time limits = only 4-6 hours of sunlight left)
 Then I immediately turned around, and went back up at full speed,
 And guess what happened,,,,
 I could travel twenty feet higher up the hill,
 so, I had a net gain of electricity,,, (a blessing)
 
 Logic and common sense says,
 that you will have energy losses,
 do to heat from friction if nothing else,
 causing you to not be able to make it as far up the hill,
 the second time you drive up it,
 
 Well, I first thought that this might just be a strange happening,
 so I did it again and again, doing it three times,
 each time gaining twenty more feet, up a steep hill, (60 feet total)
 Not only did I do it three times that day,
 but I later thought that this went against logic, (I must have dreamed it)
 and I did the whole experiment over,
 with the same electricity gaining results
 
 I know that there are inner workings of the motor + drive system,
 that I have not even roughly looked into,
 to find out why + how it works like a 10 speed,
 Sorry, but I have no time to color + shade in this drawing,
 I could only give you this rough sketch,
 and let others get the enjoyment of coloring in the details,
 may this bring you at least some of the thrills that I have experien-ced,
 when I was showed this amazing reasoning,
 Please read (Luke 18:29-30)
 
 Someone could easily build a self supplying energy producing power supply,
 With a 12v battery,(not needed) two motors, a small and large pulley, and a belt,
 You connect the motor with the big pulley up as a power in, driver motor,
 And then connect the motor,(s) with the small pulley to be used as an output
 When you put power into the drive motor,
 You get out a multiple of this power, (on each of the out generators)
 Compared to the size difference of the drive motor, (large pulley)
 And your output or generator motor. (small pulley)
 
 --- (after thought) ---
 I feel bad,,, about being so sluggish,
 Wishing that I could have spoken of these things earlier,
 as in, as soon as it came to me, a few years ago,
 (I had a hard time wondering why this was not discovered earlier)
((I guess that we are waiting on His Timing))
(((as nobody seems to be listening to my logic)))
((((nobody has built one for me yet, to prove me wrong)))
NOW
 Please,,, send this to everybody you know,,, so that we can have more people working on ways to utilize this new use for old technology,,,, after all, more is usually better,,,,,,,,
 
 Benefits to humanity:
 - To be an effective way to decrease our negative environmental effects on our earth,
 - To be able to give free electrical power to all people,
 - To greatly reduce our oil dependency,
 - To give the Middle East less power,
 - To lessen the chance of our need for oil getting us into another war,
 - To put a needed boast to our economy,
 --- by creating many new items to manufacture and sell
 
 I want to get this out in the market fast,,,
 so that there are many of these around,
 for everybody to get their hands on,
 so that we can all have free running electric cars
As well as having their own 120 volt power supplies
  there is a full diagram of this device at
 http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)

 how about energy multiplication[/font][/size]
 where you have two equal voltage motors[/font][/size]
 one is DC for input
 which has a large pulley attached to it
 the second motor is AC
 on a much smaller pulley
 this way your driver motor only turns a few times
 while your output motor spins hundreds of times
 you get a multiple of power out
 compared to the power you put in
 you run your output motor, (or multiple motors)
 through a full wave bridge rectifier and voltage regulator
to power your DC input motor[/font][/size]
and take AC power straight off your AC generator[/font][/size]
You could start this system running by giving the big pulley a little turn[/font][/size]

 I proved this works[/font][/size]
 with my electric wheelchair
 gaining 20 feet more distance up a steep hill
 every time I drove up the hill fast
 and then drove back down the hill slow
 (I had to set my chair to max torq=1st gear and max speed=10th gear)
 http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)
  We could all be putting power back into the system, by building a rough Perpetual Motion mechanisms out of junk yard parts even. I would imagine that the manufacturing industry would quickly come out with these mechanisms in all sizes, so that people could easily supplement their incomes by selling power to the power companies.
Sorry,
but I happen to be disabled + on Canada Pension
so I do not have the ability to do many experiments
nor do I have the funds to pay someone else to build a proto-type
but I was hoping that someone would build a proto-type
and prove this works before too long
It is dirt simple to build
PLEASE,,,
Someone build this and report back on your results
there is a diagram of this device at
http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)
I will try to put the drawing in the file section of each forum I visit
please,,, this is a gift
It is here for you to do with what you want
it is cheap and easy to build
the fuel it burns is time
the more time you run it
the more power you get out of it
True Source of a real free energy system.
This is a Gift to all of mankind and the rest of nature,
( no more fossil fuels polluting our environment )
free energy machine = let Electricity multiply itself [/size]
http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)[/size]
PLEASE let us act FAST[/size]
Let this be a Gift to all mankind
We could all be putting power back into the system, by building a rough Perpetual Motion mechanisms out of junk yard parts even. I would imagine that the manufacturing industry would quickly come out with these mechanisms in all sizes, so that people could easily supplement their incomes by selling power to the power companies.
 We could all be putting power back into the system, by building a rough
 [/size]Perpetual Motion mechanisms out of junk yard parts even. I would imagine that[/font][/size]
 the manufacturing industry would quickly come out with these mechanisms in all[/font][/size]
 sizes, so that people could easily supplement their incomes by selling power to
 the power companies.
 --- In EVGRAY@yahoogroups.com (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EVGRAY/post?postID=FNmasDr8nyzef7Gwb21sgF7SHPhlrh8hzTYTV_5HEBKhCcr6h_m1BF8mc9KhaTfXe92Ejzwe8MAjcjpp-g), Joe <one_christian_warrior@...> wrote:[/size]
 >[/size]
 > we could have free 120 volt AC power
 > I think this should be be easy enough to run 120 volt AC out of the leads in
 the diagram
 > I dont even think that it will need a battery
 > you just take your 120 volt AC off the leads of this machine
 > befor it goes into the bridge rectifier\
 > I would hope that there is a 120 volt DC motor out there to use
 >
 > please,,, someone build this free 120 volt AC power suply
 > I cannot, as I was disabled in a car accident
 > on canada pension
 > so I cannot afford to pay someone to build it
 >
 > we could have an easy to build
 > 120 volt AC free energy power supply
 > for each and every home
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 11, 2012, 05:23:52 PM
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg21887#msg21887 (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg21887#msg21887)
 
[/font][/size]
Witnessed an actual "commercial resonance condition" for LED lighting.
 
An established LED lighting Company showed me their LED lighting improvement with the Joule Thief/FLEET circuit.  Their test equipments include a DC power supply that can vary from 0 to over 20 volts, two oscilloscopes and all necessary electronic components.  They could measure the intensity of light generated by the LEDs.
 
They lighted up 84 LEDs with just the Joule Thief circuit (improved and tuned) varying the voltage from 1.5 volts to 20 volts.  The brightness of the LEDs increased with increasing voltage - reaching and exceeding the commercial standard.  They then lighted an additional 84 LEDs with the FLEET circuit. 
 
That already stimulated more investment and research.  One oscilloscope CSV file analysis showed the COP (average Output Power over Average Input Power) greater than 100.  With this invention, they could reduce the power supply of their existing products.
 
Another Server of the Divine Wine?
[/font][/size]
 
Email extract from the Engineer of the established LED lighting Company:
 
Quote
[/font][/size]
Dear Brother Lawrence:
I do not have any problem with it (showing the final result).
God’s has always shown me kindness…………………………..All Glory to him alone…………………………I am only his servant…………………….and all wisdom is from him above.
Amen!
The attached file showed the Output and Input Power Comparisons.  They have already improved the performance of the prototype and should be on their way to producing an improved LED lighting product.  A revolution in lighting industry is beginning.

Winning the many overunity prizes is clearly possible.  But such prize values are tiny compared with the Market Potential.  I expect both scientific and investment interests.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 12, 2012, 06:33:03 AM
Many Companies or Individuals are competing to demonstrate their prototypes or research results.
The moment a Company (Such as the South African Company visited by Sterling Allan) puts a product on the Market; all others will no longer shine.  Those that can only produce inferior results will be totally ignored.
 
Thus there is a strong motivation from some such Companies or Individuals to publish their results now.  At the same time, they do not want to fully reveal their secrets.  I suggest that they only publish their final power comparison results and the COP values.  They can then satisfy their ego and have something to show for their hard work.
 
The attached Power Comparison diagram is from Engineer Robert Roberts.  He achieved a COP of over -5,600. That was the highest COP known to me.  The negative sign comes from Input Power.  That implies a recharging circuit.  In other words, the battery supplied some energy to the load - positive power.  At the same time, the battery received some energy fed back by the circuit - negative power.  In this case, the negative power was more than the positive power. 

More Energy was fed back than supplied.  The Input was a recharging circuit!  Theoretically, no energy was required from the battery.  The battery was used to get to the “commercial resonance condition”.  At this condition, there was considerable energy supplied to the load (>5,600 Input).
The actual power in this case was small.  But it clearly demonstrated that energy must be coming from somewhere other than the battery.  The lead-out or bring-in energy theory wins.
 
Salute to Engineer Robert Roberts.   His name will be recorded in the History of Overunity Device Developments.
 
Another Server of the Divine Wine?
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 17, 2012, 07:02:59 PM
I was alerted by an Engineer that he could not see the information at the ltseung888 bench in overunityresearch.com.  It required login.
 
Thus I am attaching the most important teaching files here.  Once you understand the basic physics behind the lead-out or bring-in energy theory, much of the mystery surrounding OU devices will be cleared up.
 
Sow the Seeds.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: parisd on March 17, 2012, 08:35:05 PM
Quote from Ltseung888
"1.     The Instantaneous Power is equal to the product of the Instantaneous Voltage multiplied by the Instantaneous Current.  It does not matter whether the circuit is DC, AC or Pulsed."

Not always true and I would say this is true ONLY through a resistor, not through a capacitance or an inductance where voltage and current are not in phase. This is why we talk about VAR (volt-ampere-reactive) and WATT (power) for the output of an electrical generator, not both produce power. So we have to be prudent looking at output calcucation on oscilloscopes, may be what looks like overunity is VARs.
 
Dennis
 
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 17, 2012, 09:03:03 PM
Quote from Ltseung888
"1.     The Instantaneous Power is equal to the product of the Instantaneous Voltage multiplied by the Instantaneous Current.  It does not matter whether the circuit is DC, AC or Pulsed."
Not always true and I would say this is true ONLY through a resistor, not through a capacitance or an inductance where voltage and current are not in phase. This is why we talk about VAR (volt-ampere-reactive) and WATT (power) for the output of an electrical generator, not both produce power. So we have to be prudent looking at output calcucation on oscilloscopes, may be what looks like overunity is VARs.
 
Dennis

Dear Dennis,

Please double and triple check with your professors, textbooks and all qualified scientists and engineers.

"1.     The Instantaneous Power is equal to the product of the Instantaneous Voltage multiplied by the Instantaneous Current.  It does not matter whether the circuit is DC, AC or Pulsed."



If you cut out the word “Instantaneous”, then Power may not be equal to voltage multiplied by Current if you the load is not purely resistance. (e.g. you have inductance or capacitance load).  But once you add the word “Instantaneous”, the above statement is absolutely true.  You can put capacitors and inductors in your circuit in addition to resistors.

Please make sure your statement is correct.  Do not rely on hearsay or some unresearched statement from your head.  Such statements show total ignorance or misunderstanding of scientific facts.

I shall defend the Divine Revelations with all my heart and my might.  May the Almighty guide us all.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 17, 2012, 09:10:11 PM
http://pesn.com/2012/03/14/9602057_Johan_Open_Sourcing_His_Solid_State_Free_Energy_Charger/ (http://pesn.com/2012/03/14/9602057_Johan_Open_Sourcing_His_Solid_State_Free_Energy_Charger/)
 
It looks like we have more people working on the car battery charger.
 
The ones that I believe are promising include:
(1)    The Chao Ching Sang Car in China that was demonstrated to drive over 500 Km on one charge in 2008.
(2)    The Wang Shen He Car in China that I shall test drive when I go back.
(3)    My own prototype using improved FLEET technology. 
(4)    The LED Company that successfully used the FLEET technology to reduce their use of solar panels and batteries to one-tenth of what they currently used.
(5)    This above link - Johan Battery Charger based on the Bob Boyce Electrolyser.
(6)    Patrick Kelly as described in Chapter 5 of his excellent e-book.
(7)    The Hong Kong Team that demonstrated a battery charger that recharged phone batteries in 2009 from an AA battery.  (I believe products are available now).
 
 
I am sure that there are others.  But the chance of one of them demonstrated and proven beyond doubt within the next few months is excellent.
 
 
May there be more Severs of the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: parisd on March 18, 2012, 06:18:11 PM
Yes ltseung888, you are right no need to triple check, your statement was true for instant power, soory for that.
We must be interested not only by instant power but essentially by average power over a period of time.
 
What I want to warn is that on some curves from oscilloscopes that I have seem in this forum, comparing input courant with output current assuming same voltage is not a way to prove overunity as input current can be in phase with voltage (i.e. consuming power) and output current can be out of phase with voltage (i.e. producing some reactive "power" or VAR) and not producing only real power.
 
I saw some curves comparing surfaces of input current and output current and claiming Overunity, that's too fast as a claim, we need to know what voltage is doing (what is the Cos(Phi) between current and voltage at output and at input).
 
My Best
 
Dear Dennis,

Please double and triple check with your professors, textbooks and all qualified scientists and engineers.

"1.     The Instantaneous Power is equal to the product of the Instantaneous Voltage multiplied by the Instantaneous Current.  It does not matter whether the circuit is DC, AC or Pulsed."



If you cut out the word “Instantaneous”, then Power may not be equal to voltage multiplied by Current if you the load is not purely resistance. (e.g. you have inductance or capacitance load).  But once you add the word “Instantaneous”, the above statement is absolutely true.  You can put capacitors and inductors in your circuit in addition to resistors.

Please make sure your statement is correct.  Do not rely on hearsay or some unresearched statement from your head.  Such statements show total ignorance or misunderstanding of scientific facts.

I shall defend the Divine Revelations with all my heart and my might.  May the Almighty guide us all.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 19, 2012, 12:29:57 AM
Yes ltseung888, you are right no need to triple check, your statement was true for instant power, sorry for that.
We must be interested not only by instant power but essentially by average power over a period of time.
 

Dear Dennis,
 
With Oscilloscopes, we can display the Instantaneous Voltage and Instantaneous Current (voltage across a One Ohm resistor) values if we have a two channel Scope.  It the Scope has the built-in Multiply function, we can display also the Instantaneous Power Curve.
 
The better Scopes (e.g. the Atten Oscilloscopes I have), the sample points can also be saved as csv files.  This is the best way of analyzing the Voltage, Current and Power Results for both Input and Output.  With the csv files, we can use EXCEL to calculate the average voltage, current and power values.  We can check for negative power values.  We can integrate the power over a complete wave to get the energy associated with that wave.
 
My training threads rely on the above exact scientific analysis.  You can get more detail from the “two oscilloscope tests” thread.
 
Such Scientific Divine Revelations cannot be wrong.  May God guide us all.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Arrow on March 19, 2012, 10:50:53 PM
Guys, hi, any idea how to measure COP of magnet rotor? how to bypass magnet vortex influence that make magnets cool when they are running and producing at rotor kinetic energy? Is there anybody who know this phenomena and cop calculation way?

Truly
Rob
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 20, 2012, 04:09:51 PM
Another simple proof of Output Energy > Input Energy is the case of sound resonance.  Kinetic energy of air mollecules can be led-out or brought-in. 
 
I have put all relevant information in a single file including the Physics and Mathematics.
 
Enjoy the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 21, 2012, 06:57:39 PM
Paradigm Shift and Leadership
 
I got an interesting email and a follow-up phone call from an Educator interested in the Lead-out Energy Theory.  He mentioned that he was working on the Pulse-Gravity Motor as described in Patrick Kelly’s Book.  The plan was to demonstrate that in a Seminar/Course in June or July time frame.  The Seminar will be aimed at training Leaders.  One aspect of Leadership is to identify paradigm shifts before the masses.
 
For example, a Leader should understand the impact of the Internet in the 1970s before it was popular.  A Leader should realize its potential to change the lifestyle of millions.  Many old jobs would be lost and many new jobs would be created.  Are there technologies with similar impact today?
 
The training will use the Lead-out Energy as an example and comment on whether it represents a possible paradigm shift.
 
The traditional scientists might have been blinded by the imaginary brick wall – the inflexible application of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Perpetual Motion of any form or type is absolutely impossible.  There is no need to waste time and resources in such research.
 
The Lead-out or Bring-in Energy Theory accepts the validity of the Law of Conservation of Energy.  However, it also accepts that machines can continuously lead-out or bring-in energy from the environment.  Examples of such energy include Energy from Still Air, Energy from Gravity and Energy from the Orbiting Electrons.
 
The demonstrations will likely include:
 
1.      The Sound Resonance Experiment.  A constant sound from a signal generator will have its amplitude recorded.  Then a resonance box with height equal to ¼ wavelength will be brought into resonance.  The sound will be much louder.  The new amplitude will be recorded and compared.  The participants will then comment on the source of this extra sound energy.
2.       The Gravity Wheel Experiment.  The participants will first see a Milkovic 2 stage oscillator video.  They may also see a Pulse-Gravity wheel without any batteries.  They will also go into the mathematics of the pulse-pushed pendulum and see if they agree that 2 parts of supplied horizontal energy can lead-out 1 part of gravitational energy.
3.       The Magnetic Pendulum Experiment.  The participants will replace the bob of a normal pendulum with a magnet.  Another magnet will be placed to increase or decrease the attraction force.  They will check whether the period of oscillation changes.  They will answer the question – if gravitational energy can be led-out via a normal pendulum, can magnetic energy be led-out via a magnetic pendulum.
4.       The Output and Input Power Waveform Comparison of a FLEET prototype.  They will see that the Output Power Wave is much larger than the Input Power Wave.  They will be asked – if you are in the right position of power and influence, will you support this type of research?
5.       They will then be asked to comment on the possible paradigm shift.  How would the life style of people change if such technology is well developed?
 
 
There may be different “free energy” prototypes or videos.  There may be different questions.  But the direction of such type of training is clear.  The future Leaders will be trained to predict and guide the future based on possible paradigm shifts.
 
 
Many will taste the Divine Wine. 
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 24, 2012, 07:05:26 AM
In the coming training in both US and China, we shall discuss the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum.  It is another proof of an overunity device based on the Lee-Tseung Lead-out energy theory.  I shall use the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8
 
We can regard the pendulum as the first stage and the lever as the second stage.  The lever does not move until the pendulum swing is large.  At the large swing condition, the Weight on the LHS will go up.  When it goes down, it can do useful work.  The question is – will the work done or output energy be more than the slight push of the hand (Input energy)?
 
One interesting point to note is when and how the LHS Weight is lifted?  What forces are responsible?
 
My answer is – two forces are responsible.
1.       Weight of the pendulum bob.  This is always vertical.
2.       The Centrifugal force due to circular motion of the Pendulum.  This force is strongest when the velocity is highest.
3.       The weight of the pendulum bob alone or the centrifugal force alone will not be enough to lift the Weight on the LHS.  Their combined effect at large swing and hence high velocity at vertical position will be sufficient to lift the Weight.
 
From the Lee-Tseung lead-out energy theory, 2 parts of horizontal energy will lead-out 1 part of gravitational energy.  That represents a COP of 1.5.  The best push is actually tangential.  That will give a even higher COP.  With a single stage pendulum, we cannot extract the energy easily.  However, the two stage pendulum provides a simple mechanism for such energy extraction.
 
Thus the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum is clearly overunity.  The Input energy (slight pulse-push by the hand) is less than the Output Energy (dropping of the Weight on the LHS).  The Physics and Mathematics confirm it.
 
I am attaching the xls file with detailed mathematical analysis for those interested.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 24, 2012, 08:11:39 PM
The first draft training material is ready for comments.
 
It was used on Friday March 23, 2012.  Some polishing is required.
 
Let the Educators taste the Divine Wine first.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 25, 2012, 06:45:50 AM
http://www.overunity.com/1763/12-times-more-output-than-input-dual-mechanical-oscillation-system/msg316636/#msg316636 (http://www.overunity.com/1763/12-times-more-output-than-input-dual-mechanical-oscillation-system/msg316636/#msg316636)
 
Please go to the above link to get a full explanation of the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum.  It is theoretically an overunity device – more efficient than the simple pulse-push pendulum.
Another proof is readily available and have been replicated multiple time.  Amen
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: parisd on March 26, 2012, 05:02:33 PM
Dear Ltseung888,

I have seen in 2008 your pendulum overunity basic demonstration and I can see that today you keep saying that a simple pendulum brings Overunity. As you said this is basic secondary school physics, so it would mean that during centuries all students and physics teachers would have missed that discovery ?

In fact there is a basic terrestrial mistake (nothing devine) in your demonstration and I will help you to solve it;
According your excell file, it takes 1,64359 unit of horizontal work to raise the pendulum and give it 0,815965 unit of potential work so according to my simple calculation the efficienty is not above 1 but is simply 0,81/1,64 which is about 0.5 (NO OVERUNITY unfortunately).

But why it would be above or below OU, if there was Overunity then after lifting the pendulum when you let it go it would go to an higher elevation on the other side and it does not, in fact it will go exactly to the same elevation on the other side. (no friction assumed)

Now why did I fing an efficiency of about 0,5 using your calculation, it should be exactly 1; there is an additional mistake in the way you calculate the horizontal work, the force increases from angle 0 to angle 9.46 degree (the final angle you give in your spreadsheet). So you have to integrate the horizontal work from 0 degree to your 9.46 degree for a final force of 10 units then in that case you will find that the horizontal work is exactly the same as the vertical work that the pendulum mass accumulate (potential energy).

Hope in the future you will not make so simple mistakes and claim God brought you Overunity, I am sure others have found your mistakes before and warned you.

Despite this, I am intrigated by a 5KW self running generator from one of your Chinese colleague that I would like to see or to know where to buy one, I have seen it in picture since 2008, in video but do not know why it is not available at least to the OU commmunity or if it is then who has one ?




In the coming training in both US and China, we shall discuss the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum.  It is another proof of an overunity device based on the Lee-Tseung Lead-out energy theory.  I shall use the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC6Qlj1Mbo8)
 
We can regard the pendulum as the first stage and the lever as the second stage.  The lever does not move until the pendulum swing is large.  At the large swing condition, the Weight on the LHS will go up.  When it goes down, it can do useful work.  The question is – will the work done or output energy be more than the slight push of the hand (Input energy)?
 
One interesting point to note is when and how the LHS Weight is lifted?  What forces are responsible?
 
My answer is – two forces are responsible.
1.       Weight of the pendulum bob.  This is always vertical.
2.       The Centrifugal force due to circular motion of the Pendulum.  This force is strongest when the velocity is highest.
3.       The weight of the pendulum bob alone or the centrifugal force alone will not be enough to lift the Weight on the LHS.  Their combined effect at large swing and hence high velocity at vertical position will be sufficient to lift the Weight.
 
From the Lee-Tseung lead-out energy theory, 2 parts of horizontal energy will lead-out 1 part of gravitational energy.  That represents a COP of 1.5.  The best push is actually tangential.  That will give a even higher COP.  With a single stage pendulum, we cannot extract the energy easily.  However, the two stage pendulum provides a simple mechanism for such energy extraction.
 
Thus the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum is clearly overunity.  The Input energy (slight pulse-push by the hand) is less than the Output Energy (dropping of the Weight on the LHS).  The Physics and Mathematics confirm it.
 
I am attaching the xls file with detailed mathematical analysis for those interested.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 27, 2012, 03:29:11 AM
Dear Parisd,
 
There are NO mistakes.  Please double and triple check.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 27, 2012, 06:12:46 AM
Dear Parisd,
 
There are NO mistakes.  Please double and triple check.


parisd actually got it right.  I double and triple checked.


First of all, you are wrong when you say that the tension in the string does work.  As we all know from high school, string tension can only perform work along the string.  With the pendulum, by definition, the tension in the string is always exactly perpendicular to the motion of the bob, so the string tension cannot perform any work at all.


parisd is also correct in pointing out the flaws in your calculations.  For some reason not clear to me, you conclude that the total work done is the horizontal displacement plus the vertical displacement.  Assuming zero friction (as you do), the amount of energy required to move a bob purely horizontally (that is, sideways to force of gravity) is very near zero.  So the only real work done is the vertical component of the bob's motion.


Per your calculations, this is about half of the force that is exerted, which makes no sense.  So there is a mistake in your equation, and the mistake is not in your favor.  I do think some kind of integration is in order, as the force required to move the bob along its plane increases exponentially with the angle of incline.  This is not a linear function, as your equations imply.


Finally, and this probably does not make too much difference in moving the bob 9 degrees, your application of the purely horizontal force is an inefficient way to raise the bob.  The most efficient way to apply force would be in a direction perpendicular to the string.  As you would not be wasting energy fighting against the string.  As an example, imagine the bob at 89 degrees.  A  purely horizontal push on the bob would be expending 89/90 of its energy just applying more tension to the string, and only 1/90th of its energy actually raising the bob.  In fact, given a nonzero mass, it is theoretically impossible to raise bob to exactly 90 degrees while applying only horizontal pressure.


Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 27, 2012, 07:10:29 AM
Looks like there are many non-physicists who got themselves and others confused.
 
Rather than me giving the same explanation again, I shall wait for some other scientists or engineers to comment.
 
There are NO mistakes.  But it is good for everybody when someone raise questions.  All can learn.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 27, 2012, 08:18:21 AM
Looks like there are many non-physicists who got themselves and others confused.
 
Rather than me giving the same explanation again, I shall wait for some other scientists or engineers to comment.
 
There are NO mistakes.  But it is good for everybody when someone raise questions.  All can learn.


I disagree.  I think you have made a mistake.  But I am willing to stand corrected if shown a pendulum in perpetual motion, as you assert.  I love learning new things.


I do think your calculation of horizontal work is at the crux of your error.  You are counting the vertical work double.  You count it as part of the horizontal, and then also as part of the vertical.  There is only one bit of work done, and that is rasing the bob against gravity.  Everything else is just (almost, if not for slight friction) effortless motion that does not constitute work.


I've googled some of your older posts, and it appears you have been taking this position for many years now.  This makes me think what I am writing here is wasted effort, as you obviously have seen this criticism before and have not been convinced by it.  Good luck, though.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: parisd on March 27, 2012, 04:26:31 PM
Lsteung888,

No need to double check, your overunity calculation mistake is obvious.

But prove me wrong by lifting the pendulum to an angle of 9.46 degree (or whatever you wish) using an horizontal force then please do show us overunity; just make a video of any pendulum that has been raised to X degree then just let it go, it will oscillate and due to calculated overunity of 1.5 on the other side should raise more than -X degrees, easy to prove if yes or no you are right. I bet it will stop at -X degrees or slightly less.

Good continuation but please dont confuse people with wrong statement on OU, we are here to find the real thing.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 27, 2012, 04:49:52 PM

I disagree.  I think you have made a mistake.  But I am willing to stand corrected if shown a pendulum in perpetual motion, as you assert.  I love learning new things.


I do think your calculation of horizontal work is at the crux of your error.  You are counting the vertical work double.  You count it as part of the horizontal, and then also as part of the vertical.  There is only one bit of work done, and that is rasing the bob against gravity.  Everything else is just (almost, if not for slight friction) effortless motion that does not constitute work.


I've googled some of your older posts, and it appears you have been taking this position for many years now.  This makes me think what I am writing here is wasted effort, as you obviously have seen this criticism before and have not been convinced by it.  Good luck, though.

Dear eatenbyagrue,
 
I am glad that you checked out my older posts.  The calculation is still the same.  There are absolutely no mistakes.  I do not need to change my position.
 
I shall wait a few more days to see if there are more comments.  All your doubts, those of parisd or any other serious members will be answered all at once.  Hopefully this will be the last time I repeat the explanation. 
 
In the past, I tried to answer one question at a time and that made the explanations somewhat lengthy and spread out over many posts.  So wait a few more days and we can get a full and complete explanation.
 
Meanwhile, play with the spreadsheet.  Change the horizontal force to 1,2,3,4… for example and see the effect of the smaller angles.  Check the ratio of horizontal work and vertical work for these cases.
 
Divine Wine is worth waiting.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 29, 2012, 09:07:59 AM

Dear eatenbyagrue,
 
I am glad that you checked out my older posts.  The calculation is still the same.  There are absolutely no mistakes.  I do not need to change my position.
 
I shall wait a few more days to see if there are more comments.  All your doubts, those of parisd or any other serious members will be answered all at once.  Hopefully this will be the last time I repeat the explanation. 
 
In the past, I tried to answer one question at a time and that made the explanations somewhat lengthy and spread out over many posts.  So wait a few more days and we can get a full and complete explanation.
 
Meanwhile, play with the spreadsheet.  Change the horizontal force to 1,2,3,4… for example and see the effect of the smaller angles.  Check the ratio of horizontal work and vertical work for these cases.
 
Divine Wine is worth waiting.


Why do you even need a pendulum in this example?  It just makes your calculations more complicated, as you have to solve circular force equations.


Why don't you just use an inclined plane, where the motion is linear?


And I have a question for you.  In an inclined plane, when you roll a ball up the plane, does the incline do work (presumably via the "tension" exerted by the ball onto the plane)?


If you are asserting that the inclined plane is doing work, I do not think we have anything further to talk about.  Your definition of "work" is well outside of established physics.  Your device might be overunity, but not in this universe.  You need different laws of physics.


Also, please do not insult the very few readers you have by calling us amateurs who cause confusion.  You are also an amateur, and please remember that you actually have a receptive audience on this forum.  We want to believe you and are predisposed to do so.  But this is so far removed from correct math, that it is hard to do.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 29, 2012, 04:10:09 PM
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 30, 2012, 01:38:56 AM
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.


I have reviewed your documents, and I am sorry, but you have made a mistake.  I believe you are correct when you say "We all know that a horizontal force cannot do vertical work unless some type of machine is used to change the direction of the force."  You go on to say that you did not see any such mechanism in the pendulum.

There is a mechanism in the pendulum that changes the direction of the force - it is the string.  The bob wants to fall, but the string does not let it.  The bob wants to remain level as it is being moved, but the string will not let it.  The function is similar to an inclined plane.

There is no horizontal versus vertical work here.  There is only vertical work.  When you push sideways, the ball is redirected diagonally.  So I do not see any overunity here, and your example of Milkovic's two stage oscillator is not convincing, as that machine is obviously not over unity, as it stops on its own.

Unless you can convince us how your theory is different than just pushing a ball up an inclined plane, which we know is an under unity activity, there is nothing more here for me.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 30, 2012, 02:14:10 AM
It looks like I should give the full explanation earlier than I planned.
 
Please study the attached two files.
 
The explanation file goes into every cell in the spreadsheet in its glorious detail.  I shall focus on answering questions related to these two files.
 
These two files are also available in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench in the United Nations Seminar thread.
 
Sow seeds and see where they fall.  Amen.


I will add one more thing.  I think you actually realize my point when you say - "the best pulse-push is actually tangential."  Are you aware of what you are saying?  There is no longer a horizontal push that does vertical work.  You push diagonally, and the bob moves diagonally.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 30, 2012, 04:11:37 PM
Quote
There is a mechanism in the pendulum that changes the direction of the force - it is the string.  The bob wants to fall, but the string does not let it.  The bob wants to remain level as it is being moved, but the string will not let it.  The function is similar to an inclined plane.

Dear eatenbyagrue,

Please think more about your comparison with the inclined plane.

The pulse-pushed Pendulum is unique in that it can lead-out gravitational energy.  We used the simplest case of applying a horizontal force to it when it is at rest. 

You said that the mechanism was the string that changes the direction of the force.  It is correct.  But if it is correct, we can then apply the Laws of Physics to resolve it into two components – the vertical and the horizontal.  That is our analysis.  Are you saying that we cannot resolve the force from the string (tension) into these components?  Please think and consult your professors and knowledgeable physicist friends.

We can apply the Laws of Physics to any real situation.  This is regarded as the ultimate test of these Laws.  Sometimes we might have overlooked some factors and misapplied such Laws.  In the example outlined in Divine Revelation 2.xls, there are NO mistakes or misapplication.

The scientists in the past misapplied the Law of Conservation of Energy to the whole class of lead-out or bring-in energy machines.  These machines bring-in existing energy from the environment.
 
You should enjoy arguments but should not be eaten by them.
 
When sowing seeds, some may fall on hard rock.  I leave it in the hands of the Almighty.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 30, 2012, 05:20:48 PM
Are you saying that we cannot resolve the force from the string (tension) into these components?  Please think and consult your professors and knowledgeable physicist friends.


You telling me to think more or to consult my friends without answering my criticisms is a non-answer.  I do not need to consult with anyone.  This is high school stuff.


I challenge you to distinguish your pendulum from an inclined plane in any way meaningful to this analysis.  In other words, why is an inclined plane under unity, while your devices delivers free energy?  "Pulsing" or whatever it is you are doing could easily be done in an inclined plane scenario.


Second, you have also not answered my comment about applying tangential force.  When you apply tangential force, as you state, you are applying your pulse diagonally, not horizontally.  So why all the math with the horizontal work versus vertical work?  The bob goes exactly in the direction you push it.



Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 30, 2012, 05:35:18 PM

You telling me to think more or to consult my friends without answering my criticisms is a non-answer.  I do not need to consult with anyone.  This is high school stuff.
 
*** The teachers in high school never learned lead-out energy theory.  The theory was developed in 2004 and has not found its way into textbooks yet.


I challenge you to distinguish your pendulum from an inclined plane in any way meaningful to this analysis.  In other words, why is an inclined plane under unity, while your devices delivers free energy?  "Pulsing" or whatever it is you are doing could easily be done in an inclined plane scenario.
 
*** I do not accept such challenges.  The pulse-pushed pendulum and the continuous pushed incline plane are two different machines working on different mechanisms.  Why waste time and brain-power?


Second, you have also not answered my comment about applying tangential force.  When you apply tangential force, as you state, you are applying your pulse diagonally, not horizontally.  So why all the math with the horizontal work versus vertical work?  The bob goes exactly in the direction you push it.
 
*** If you checked in the past posts and on the Divine Revelation 2.xls, you would have found that we know the use of the tangential force long ago.  I did not choose to use it as the example as the mathematics is a little more complex.  I had another spreadsheet using that for analysis but all the students found this one easier.
 
*** Lee and I looked for the simplest model.  This horizontal push at stationary condition is the simplest we found.
 
Keep thinking and analyzing.  May the Almighty shine the light on you.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: eatenbyagrue on March 30, 2012, 06:08:42 PM
OK, I do not think this is going anywhere.  You appear to have great energy for this theory, but I do not believe it is workable, so I am not going to spend any more time on it.  You have committed some very basic mistakes, and appear to have no intention of acknowledging them.

Good luck with your endeavors.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on March 31, 2012, 04:57:59 PM
Now that the explanation file on Divine Revelation 2.xls is complete, I do not need to engage in unnecessary re-explanation again.  Some seeds may still land on hard rock.
Here is the email extract from Mr. Wang Shen He yesterday.
Quote
蒋先生:十分想念!你何时回深圳看看我的磁动力小跑车!另外磁动力机还得加大技术转让宣传!王沈河致
 
 
Translated:
 
Dear Mr. Tseung,
 
When are you coming back to Shenzhen to see my magnet-driven electric sports car?  Please help to promote the technology transfer more.
 
Regards,
Wang Shen He

 
I shall be back in China towards the end of April.  If possible, some details of the magnet-driven electric car will be revealed.
 
 
Need any more proof???
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Joh70 on April 08, 2012, 12:06:22 AM
Itseung888,


when do you think, the first free energy device will be come to public market?
even a toy showing a principle, or magnetic fan, or anything else


you mentioned device from south-africa and china....,
they seem quite far,,,,
only marketing is missing and copy-protection (which is not easy)


i am curios about the near future,
- solar business in germany is decreasing fast,,,,,
- wind energy is still not very successfull in south-germany where i live,
- many nuclear power plants already switched off in germany,
- fuel for cars got incredible expensive nowadays,,,,
how long to wait for a good news from new energies and
a shame-effect for the ignorant doctors and professors?


Thank you  for an answer,
Johannes

Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on April 12, 2012, 02:52:36 PM
I am reasonably certain that a commercial product of significance will be available on the Market soon.
 
The FLEET technology has advanced to the point that the output can be greater than 1 KW.  The battery can be recharged.  This can be demonstrated today.
 
The next step is to remove the battery after starting.  That will equal the Steven Mark TPU in capability.  At the same time, the Output Power will be increased to 5KW for a home generator.
 
All Glory goes to the Almighty.  We can now enjoy the Divine Wine.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Joh70 on April 12, 2012, 03:24:29 PM
Thanks itseung888 for you answer!


Yes, i think solid state static devices will be the successfull type of free energy devices: Smart, Silent, Compact, Powerfull. Really impressive... And yes, it will be soon,,,,,,,


Glory to the almighty, which delivered the physics for all that since ever,,,,only the science was too blind and arrogant,,,,what a shame,,,,and there will be more such cases of exposing humanly proudness,,,,,we will see
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: ltseung888 on April 16, 2012, 05:10:34 PM
It appears that we can put multiple 1KW units together to achieve a 5KW home generator unit.
 
The LARRS sign on the last picture stands for Lawrence, Apache, Raymond, Robert and Steve.
 
Glory to the Almighty.
Title: Free energy is so simple that we have overlooked it.
Post by: one_christian_warrior on August 08, 2013, 08:22:58 PM
 Free energy is so simple that we have overlooked it.
 This free-energy device is based on simple multiplication of rotations
 that you get by putting a very large and very small pulley within the same belt
 You could also gain another multiplication factor by adding additional small pulleys attached to generators on the same belt, rope. Strap
This way you could easily multiply the number of rotations
 With electricity, multiplication of rotations means multiplication of electricity.
So, in effect, you are using a simple pulley system
To multiply the number of rotations, as well as your electrical power   
Believe me, I found this extremely hard to believe in myself         IMPOSIBLE.
 But the efforts of that crafty Satan and all of his evil cohorts, 1/3 fallen angels
 This is a major conspiracy work by fallen angels and sadly deceived misguided humans
 
 This is so simple, there is no digital trickery with electronic.
 You are using the massive geometric differences of pulley sizes to multiply your rotations = thereby multiplying your power.
 It is really just that simple
 
 JUST BELIEVE + BUILD IT
http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)
 
This is a Miracle from God, and yes, it seems to defy thermodynamics.
 It does this by using the extreme circumferential size differences in the pulleys.
 Just think about it, you only have to put energy enough to turn the drive motor the once,
 and by adding multiple mini-pulleys with generators on them hundreds of rotations.
 YOU MUST GAIN ELECTRICAL POWER   
We can let God worry about the details of what about torque
 Just try this. And I promise you that it will work
 it works on multiplying the rotations of pulleys
 and with electricity, more rotations means more electricity
 it is really that simple guys + gals

 FREE ENERGY IS HERE
 now lets have many people working on free energy power supplies
 
I love my Father[/font]
He teaches me all that I ask [/font]
I hope that I maybe able to shake up this world[/font]
I want to dissolve this evolution fairytale[/font]
I would like to know how these scientists explain[/font]
how does our moon remain in orbit [/font][/size]
with the constant addition of space dust [/font][/size]
we do not hear much about space not being empty[/font][/size]
but it contains a stead stream of dust particals[/font][/size]
messing up the trejectory of its orbit[/font][/size]
 [/font][/size]
http://free-energy.yolasite.com/ (http://free-energy.yolasite.com/)[/font][/size]
 [/size]
Title: Re: Free energy is so simple that we have overlooked it.
Post by: LibreEnergia on August 08, 2013, 11:06:04 PM
  You are using the massive geometric differences of pulley sizes to multiply your rotations = thereby multiplying your power.
 It is really just that simple
 

This is some of the most egregious bullshit I've read on here in a while.

Power is not multiplied by adding 'rotations'. Torque may be multiplied (or reduced) but the rotational velocity is inversely affected.

Power, which is the product of torque * angular velocity is unchanged.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 08, 2013, 11:34:17 PM
So I guess the best OU machine around must be a ten-speed bicycle. Thank God for the downhills!
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: TinselKoala on August 09, 2013, 12:18:50 AM
Ah.... it's the overunity wheelchair design again.

Look, warrior.... get someone to help you make a video showing some evidence for your claims. Use a cellphone camera! Don't you have any friends at all?

A system that could have been taken directly from your drawing was "supposed" to be demonstrated Live on Camera on the Smart Scarecrow show this evening. Much touted, allegedly the inventor spent 2.5 million dollars over the past few years on it. But guess what... there will be no demonstration this evening, because the device doesn't work after all -- like every other device of this type, it is allergic to demonstrations that aren't completely controlled by the claimant.

Your claim is pretty much the basic motor-generator or MoGen scheme that every bright ten-year-old kid comes up with and tries to build with his first soldering iron and toy motors ripped out of model cars. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now, so if you want anyone to take  you seriously you will have to provide some evidence, not prayer, not pleas for money... .but evidence of your own that supports your claims.

Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: elementSix on August 10, 2013, 07:40:17 AM
For having a device that produces radiant spikes, you sure don't seem to be a believer...  Your video with the HVDC Tesla Coil was awesome.  You had Pink and white sparks of radiant energy..  The thing you should try is current resonance.  I am pretty sure that if your setup doesn't consume amps, it will produce tons of radiant energy, Volts and Amps.  Your Tesla coil was almost there, you just need to adjust it a bit and you will get OU...  The proof is the Pink and white sparks you were getting off your coil..   Good Luck TK...

Proof is MagnaCoaster.  The only way he could get that device on the market was to make it output pulses DC...  It has to have some external input to run also.  But he does get a lot more out..
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Pirate88179 on August 10, 2013, 09:00:37 AM
Ah.... it's the overunity wheelchair design again.

Look, warrior.... get someone to help you make a video showing some evidence for your claims. Use a cellphone camera! Don't you have any friends at all?

A system that could have been taken directly from your drawing was "supposed" to be demonstrated Live on Camera on the Smart Scarecrow show this evening. Much touted, allegedly the inventor spent 2.5 million dollars over the past few years on it. But guess what... there will be no demonstration this evening, because the device doesn't work after all -- like every other device of this type, it is allergic to demonstrations that aren't completely controlled by the claimant.

Your claim is pretty much the basic motor-generator or MoGen scheme that every bright ten-year-old kid comes up with and tries to build with his first soldering iron and toy motors ripped out of model cars. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now, so if you want anyone to take  you seriously you will have to provide some evidence, not prayer, not pleas for money... .but evidence of your own that supports your claims.

TK:

Nice drawing but, you forgot the mosfets.  Also, you don't have near enough batteries in your circuit for a free energy device.

Bill
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: SaneOne on May 14, 2014, 08:39:45 PM
Proof is MagnaCoaster.  The only way he could get that device on the market was to make it output pulses DC...  It has to have some external input to run also.  But he does get a lot more out..
Using the words "Magnacoaster" and "proof" in the same sentence?

A guy who "manufactures" devices and claims to be delivering them to customers but somehow can not point to a single independent test confirming his results or name anyone anywhere who has a working unit should not be referred to in a serious scientific discussion.

It would appear the only thing Magnacoaster is extracting is money from people's wallets which does seem to travel in one direction so perhaps the DC analogy is somewhat appropriate in that limited sense.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Qwert on May 14, 2014, 09:13:37 PM
See this:
http://www.overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/95/#.U3O9LyjdwmR
http://www.overunity.com/5024/urgent-water-as-fuel-discovery-for-everyone-to-share/#.U3O-_ijdwmQ

The second link is not about hydrogen despite suggested such at the beginning; read the paper from the first link to understand. I see this as the only simple solution for energy crisis.
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: TheCell on May 14, 2014, 09:17:14 PM
OU Photovoltaik; 3 Examples

Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: CuriousChris on May 17, 2014, 03:02:12 AM
You asked for "Any Proof"

Keep in mind EVERYTHING written in the posts above are CLAIMS. Not one of them represents proof or even anything coming close to proof of overunity.

On the other hand is there proof against overunity?

Sadly an overwhelming abundance of proof.

There are very very few "laws of physics". That is so important that it cannot be understated. Something does not pass into law until it has been proven countless times. The law of conservation of energy is one such law.

Does that mean we won't find overunity? Frankly Yes, but first lets clarify some terms.

Overunity : when used within this community it only means one thing regardless of the rants of some.

Overunity means More Energy Out Than In. ein < eout. Thats it pure and simple!

COP: Coefficient of performance. Lets get this straight COP IS NOT OU. Anyone claiming otherwise is using a very simplistic view. The classic example of COP is the heat pump, people confuse a heatpump with a COP of say 4.5 as somehow overunity. It is Not! What it means is 1 unit of input energy "motivates" 4.5 units of output energy. Think of it like a light switch. It takes very little energy to turn a light on, but that energy does NOT cause the lamp to glow it simply provides a path for the real energy to make the lamp glow.

In the case of a heat pump the lines are a little more blurred. The input energy collects latent heat from the surrounding environment and pushes it to the output. The input energy simply provides the motive power. The actual output energy is comprised *entirely* of latent heat from the surroundings (which may include some of the waste input energy)

So like the light switch the input energy actually contributes very little or nothing to the output energy. It just provides the path. In a heat pump ALL the input energy is consumed by the pump motor as either motive force or waste heat.

So remember this rule COP IS NOT OU.

Getting back to proof of the conservation of energy. In science the way you prove a theory is you apply it to a problem and see if the theory predicts something about the problem which would not be known otherwise. You then test that prediction and see if it is correct or not.

The law of conservation of energy is tested that way everyday by thousands of scientists and engineers. It has not failed. Those scientists and engineers are not looking to test the law they are using the law to test their calculations. if the law wasnt correct then their calculations would be wrong.

Lets consider some of the things that wouldnt work if it wasnt for the law of conservation of energy. Hmmm well basically everything. Your mobile phone, that plane flying overhead, your microwave, that pacemaker, the computer you are typing on. They all rely on calculations which if wrong they would fail.

But lets give a more dramatic example something thats a little less obvious. I mean the Wright brothers didnt know they were applying the laws of conservation of energy when they achieved their first flight now did they (well actually they might have).

The discovery of neutrino's.

Neutrino's had to exist! When calculating the energy released by beta decay (radiation) there was missing energy. The calculations failed to account for all the energy and therefore failed to pass the law of conservation of energy. Thus it was obvious there was something else that no one could measure. but it HAD to be there!

So science went looking for it.

23 years later they found it. The neutrino! You can read about it here http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html

The only reason they found it was because their calculations of the decay of beta particles did not correlate with the conservation of energy laws!

What does that mean. Should we just give up searching for "free energy"?

No. It means we cannot magically "make energy" but it does not mean we cannot learn how to harvest energy from unusual sources and make it work for us.

So when you are reviewing all the ideas on this and other forums. Ask yourself or the inventor "Where is the energy coming from" If they say they dont know (or zero point energy which is the same thing) then you know they are wasting your time. Move on to something more productive we don't live long enough to waste time on the CLAIMS of fools.

CC





Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: Pirate88179 on May 17, 2014, 03:40:38 AM
You asked for "Any Proof"

Keep in mind EVERYTHING written in the posts above are CLAIMS. Not one of them represents proof or even anything coming close to proof of overunity.

On the other hand is there proof against overunity?

Sadly an overwhelming abundance of proof.

There are very very few "laws of physics". That is so important that it cannot be understated. Something does not pass into law until it has been proven countless times. The law of conservation of energy is one such law.

Does that mean we won't find overunity? Frankly Yes, but first lets clarify some terms.

Overunity : when used within this community it only means one thing regardless of the rants of some.

Overunity means More Energy Out Than In. ein < eout. Thats it pure and simple!

COP: Coefficient of performance. Lets get this straight COP IS NOT OU. Anyone claiming otherwise is using a very simplistic view. The classic example of COP is the heat pump, people confuse a heatpump with a COP of say 4.5 as somehow overunity. It is Not! What it means is 1 unit of input energy "motivates" 4.5 units of output energy. Think of it like a light switch. It takes very little energy to turn a light on, but that energy does NOT cause the lamp to glow it simply provides a path for the real energy to make the lamp glow.

In the case of a heat pump the lines are a little more blurred. The input energy collects latent heat from the surrounding environment and pushes it to the output. The input energy simply provides the motive power. The actual output energy is comprised *entirely* of latent heat from the surroundings (which may include some of the waste input energy)

So like the light switch the input energy actually contributes very little or nothing to the output energy. It just provides the path. In a heat pump ALL the input energy is consumed by the pump motor as either motive force or waste heat.

So remember this rule COP IS NOT OU.

Getting back to proof of the conservation of energy. In science the way you prove a theory is you apply it to a problem and see if the theory predicts something about the problem which would not be known otherwise. You then test that prediction and see if it is correct or not.

The law of conservation of energy is tested that way everyday by thousands of scientists and engineers. It has not failed. Those scientists and engineers are not looking to test the law they are using the law to test their calculations. if the law wasnt correct then their calculations would be wrong.

Lets consider some of the things that wouldnt work if it wasnt for the law of conservation of energy. Hmmm well basically everything. Your mobile phone, that plane flying overhead, your microwave, that pacemaker, the computer you are typing on. They all rely on calculations which if wrong they would fail.

But lets give a more dramatic example something thats a little less obvious. I mean the Wright brothers didnt know they were applying the laws of conservation of energy when they achieved their first flight now did they (well actually they might have).

The discovery of neutrino's.

Neutrino's had to exist! When calculating the energy released by beta decay (radiation) there was missing energy. The calculations failed to account for all the energy and therefore failed to pass the law of conservation of energy. Thus it was obvious there was something else that no one could measure. but it HAD to be there!

So science went looking for it.

23 years later they found it. The neutrino! You can read about it here http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html (http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html)

The only reason they found it was because their calculations of the decay of beta particles did not correlate with the conservation of energy laws!

What does that mean. Should we just give up searching for "free energy"?

No. It means we cannot magically "make energy" but it does not mean we cannot learn how to harvest energy from unusual sources and make it work for us.

So when you are reviewing all the ideas on this and other forums. Ask yourself or the inventor "Where is the energy coming from" If they say they dont know (or zero point energy which is the same thing) then you know they are wasting your time. Move on to something more productive we don't live long enough to waste time on the CLAIMS of fools.

CC

Great post!  I understand the confusion on the COP of a heat pump as it has been discussed on this site in many other topics.  To me, the real "proof" is to show me a heat pump that can run itself.  No one has been able to do that yet.  So, we need to get our terms in order so we are all on the same page.  I tried to do that years ago and it was a mess.

Once again, excellent post.

Bill
Title: Re: Any proof?
Post by: bboj on May 17, 2014, 08:45:13 AM
EXACTLY!
Let us talk about cheaper energy, its source and operationg principle first and than experimenting.
You asked for "Any Proof"

Keep in mind EVERYTHING written in the posts above are CLAIMS. Not one of them represents proof or even anything coming close to proof of overunity.

On the other hand is there proof against overunity?

Sadly an overwhelming abundance of proof.

There are very very few "laws of physics". That is so important that it cannot be understated. Something does not pass into law until it has been proven countless times. The law of conservation of energy is one such law.

Does that mean we won't find overunity? Frankly Yes, but first lets clarify some terms.

Overunity : when used within this community it only means one thing regardless of the rants of some.

Overunity means More Energy Out Than In. ein < eout. Thats it pure and simple!

COP: Coefficient of performance. Lets get this straight COP IS NOT OU. Anyone claiming otherwise is using a very simplistic view. The classic example of COP is the heat pump, people confuse a heatpump with a COP of say 4.5 as somehow overunity. It is Not! What it means is 1 unit of input energy "motivates" 4.5 units of output energy. Think of it like a light switch. It takes very little energy to turn a light on, but that energy does NOT cause the lamp to glow it simply provides a path for the real energy to make the lamp glow.

In the case of a heat pump the lines are a little more blurred. The input energy collects latent heat from the surrounding environment and pushes it to the output. The input energy simply provides the motive power. The actual output energy is comprised *entirely* of latent heat from the surroundings (which may include some of the waste input energy)

So like the light switch the input energy actually contributes very little or nothing to the output energy. It just provides the path. In a heat pump ALL the input energy is consumed by the pump motor as either motive force or waste heat.

So remember this rule COP IS NOT OU.

Getting back to proof of the conservation of energy. In science the way you prove a theory is you apply it to a problem and see if the theory predicts something about the problem which would not be known otherwise. You then test that prediction and see if it is correct or not.

The law of conservation of energy is tested that way everyday by thousands of scientists and engineers. It has not failed. Those scientists and engineers are not looking to test the law they are using the law to test their calculations. if the law wasnt correct then their calculations would be wrong.

Lets consider some of the things that wouldnt work if it wasnt for the law of conservation of energy. Hmmm well basically everything. Your mobile phone, that plane flying overhead, your microwave, that pacemaker, the computer you are typing on. They all rely on calculations which if wrong they would fail.

But lets give a more dramatic example something thats a little less obvious. I mean the Wright brothers didnt know they were applying the laws of conservation of energy when they achieved their first flight now did they (well actually they might have).

The discovery of neutrino's.

Neutrino's had to exist! When calculating the energy released by beta decay (radiation) there was missing energy. The calculations failed to account for all the energy and therefore failed to pass the law of conservation of energy. Thus it was obvious there was something else that no one could measure. but it HAD to be there!

So science went looking for it.

23 years later they found it. The neutrino! You can read about it here http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html (http://www.ps.uci.edu/physics/news/nuexpt.html)

The only reason they found it was because their calculations of the decay of beta particles did not correlate with the conservation of energy laws!

What does that mean. Should we just give up searching for "free energy"?

No. It means we cannot magically "make energy" but it does not mean we cannot learn how to harvest energy from unusual sources and make it work for us.

So when you are reviewing all the ideas on this and other forums. Ask yourself or the inventor "Where is the energy coming from" If they say they dont know (or zero point energy which is the same thing) then you know they are wasting your time. Move on to something more productive we don't live long enough to waste time on the CLAIMS of fools.

CC