Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: Overunutty on March 14, 2016, 05:40:17 PM

Title: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 14, 2016, 05:40:17 PM
If I can mechanically store 100,001 joules of stored energy in a set of flywheels and the input required is 100,000 joules to reach this goal. Is this overunity?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 21, 2016, 12:23:34 AM
If I can mechanically store 100,001 joules of stored energy in a set of flywheels and the input required is 100,000 joules to reach this goal. Is this overunity?
I guess this is beyond the ability of this website?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: tinman on March 21, 2016, 12:35:35 AM
If I can mechanically store 100,001 joules of stored energy in a set of flywheels and the input required is 100,000 joules to reach this goal. Is this overunity?

The flywheels would not be what is OU,but the motor/engine/device that spun up the flywheels would be-->or you have not taken into account environmental input to the system.


Brad
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 21, 2016, 04:46:49 AM
The flywheels would not be what is OU,but the motor/engine/device that spun up the flywheels would be-->or you have not taken into account environmental input to the system.


Brad



Nice answer Brad :)

A flywheel stores Energy in the form of Momentum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation), there is a transfer function.

If your Transfer Function were efficent enough then yes there could be an Energy Giain.

Brad is right though, the Flywheel itself is not Over Unity.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Not a bad screen name: "Overunutty" implies a little bit of crazy there :)

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 21, 2016, 06:12:31 PM


Nice answer Brad :)

A flywheel stores Energy in the form of Momentum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation), there is a transfer function.

If your Transfer Function were efficent enough then yes there could be an Energy Giain.

Brad is right though, the Flywheel itself is not Over Unity.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Not a bad screen name: "Overunutty" implies a little bit of crazy there :)
I'm nutty over this subject!!  Lol. I understand that the flywheels are only capable of storing the energy created but if I were to increase this again mechanically to let's say 15000 joules and it took 10000 joules to get there, is the problem of retrieving the energy stored the concern? Or is it the fact that you think this is impossible?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 21, 2016, 06:38:56 PM
Basically what I'm asking is not where the overunity is but is it overunity?
Once the energy is stored mechanically what difference does it make if it's the flywheel or the procedure to get there that is considered overunity?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 22, 2016, 02:21:07 AM
Given the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 22, 2016, 02:30:09 AM
Given the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible.

Exactly correct.


Overunutty:

The overunity is in the question itself..."If I can store more energy in a flywheel than I put into a flywheel, would that be overunity?"
The answer is that your premise is not possible, therefore the answer is no.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 03:49:27 AM

Given the first law of thermodynamics, it is impossible.




This is classic caveman Science!!!

The Power that YOU put into a system vs the Power that YOU get out of a System has nothing to do with the "the first law of thermodynamics"!!!

Joules transformed can and does occur every day and has nothing to do with limiting YOU or any System to any open operational characteristic!!!

Hydroelectric Systems would not be practical if it were a Closed System!!! Wind Turbine, and so many more.

Do YOU put 1.20 watts into your local Hydroelectric Power Station, to get 1 watt out do YOU ???

Damned Caveman Science 101 - Or do you want to prove me wrong?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


P.S: I did see a forum somewhere debating: first law of thermodynamics vs the Big Bang!!! Now that's going to be a good debate!!!





Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 22, 2016, 04:01:24 AM
Power is not energy.
Joules are a measure of energy. The first law of thermodynamics is about Joules.
I never went to Caveman University, so didn't take Caveman Science 101. Did you?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 04:06:04 AM
Power is not energy.
Joules are a measure of energy. The first law of thermodynamics is about Joules.
I never went to Caveman University, so didn't take Caveman Science 101. Did you?


Malarkey!!!

Power (Watts) is Joules per second. Energy over time. It is a Measure of Energy through the course of Time.

So this is rubbish argument as well!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 22, 2016, 04:12:26 AM
It is not an argument; simply the definition.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 04:24:23 AM
It is not an argument; simply the definition.


Which I already gave you in my post.

Or did you not read that far down?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 04:43:54 AM
Sorry Memoryman, but this way of thinking, simply is wrong!


Like I said, "The First Law of Thermodynamics" has nothing to do, at all, with the subject matter!!!


Through lack of definite definitions and loosely termed acronym's, Science and the English language, no doubt other languages, have crossed into completely different territory's.

 
You are talking about Creating Energy from Nothing, a bit like the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and how The First Law of Thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics) does not support it. Yet Science supports both concepts!

We are talking about if We put in 100,000 joules but have 100,001 joules stored in a Flywheel. There is nothing to limit us in an OPEN SYSTEM from doing exactly this. Like a Hydroelectric Station, the Output we get out, is not limited to what WE put in!!! We put in a few hours of Labour in Maintenance, when Mega-Watts could be the output.

So you see, Talking Apples, when Oranges is the subject matter, is just non-sense!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 22, 2016, 02:58:01 PM
The First Law of Thermodynamics is fundamental to talking about energy. It is important to consider the system (to energy flow) as open or closed.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 22, 2016, 07:34:25 PM
Exactly correct.


Overunutty:

The overunity is in the question itself..."If I can store more energy in a flywheel than I put into a flywheel, would that be overunity?"
The answer is that your premise is not possible, therefore the answer is no.

Bill
That is not the question I asked, a flywheel can only store so much energy. It all depends on RPM's, diameter and weight, once these parameters are met, you cannot change this. I never specified the size of flywheels. Again I ask "if I can store 150,000 joules in a set of flywheels, that is capable of storing 150,000, but I only used 100,000 joules of energy to get it to that amount, is this considered overunity?"
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 08:23:49 PM
The First Law of Thermodynamics is fundamental to talking about energy. It is important to consider the system (to energy flow) as open or closed.




Bull Dust!!!

The First Law of Thermodynamics is an excuse for Caveman Scientists to dismiss technology's and ideas they are too damn lazy to explain properly with real Science!!!

No one here ever has bought up "Creating Energy from Nothing" - EVER!!!

For you to complicate this topic with such Malarkey is total NON-SENSE!!!

It clearly  shows you do not know what you are talking about! Being subliminally conditioned to connect two totally different things to each other to dismiss the latter.

This is not Real Science!!! Its Caveman Science 101!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 22, 2016, 09:45:59 PM
Chris, why don't you explain it to me? Please use simple terms as I am a simple guy who never went to Caveman U. ( I did attend the University of Waterloo, bu they don't teach real science there, just gobble-d-gook that helps in making computers and other such useless stuff).
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 22, 2016, 10:13:26 PM
Chris, why don't you explain it to me? Please use simple terms as I am a simple guy who never went to Caveman U. ( I did attend the University of Waterloo, bu they don't teach real science there, just gobble-d-gook that helps in making computers and other such useless stuff).


Memoryman - I believe I have very clearly stated the plainly obvious - Have I not?

Youre asking me to explain again what I have already explained? Also the question that was orriginally asked?

1: The orriginal Question:
If I can mechanically store 100,001 joules of stored energy in a set of flywheels and the input required is 100,000 joules to reach this goal. Is this overunity?

2: A very valid first response:
The flywheels would not be what is OU,but the motor/engine/device that spun up the flywheels would be-->or you have not taken into account environmental input to the system.


Brad

3: It is perfectly reasonable for another environmental influience to add energy to a System - We do this all the time in Science!!! EG: Hydrolectric Power Station, Wind Turbines, Hydraulic Ram Pump's... the list is endless...

4: Your rebuttle excluding such phenomena[3] is just nonsense!!!

The Electrical Energy (Joules per Second) I put into a System could be 1 Watt. I might get out 10 Watts, there is nothing at all in Science limiting this scenario and this is what is considered to be Over Unity! Al Systems have losses, all Systems will have a maximum efficency, but there is nothing at all to stop additional Energy entering the System adding to the Input Energy we put in.

EnergyOut = EnergyInput + EnergyEnvironmental - Energylosses = (EnergyInput < EnergyOut)(EnergyEnvironmental > Energylosses) <<<--- Simple as that!!!

Where:
EnergyOut being greater than EnergyInput is a Function of EnergyEnvironmental being greater than Energylosses.

I am sure a million Mathematicians could write that much better than I have.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 23, 2016, 01:51:13 AM
That is not the question I asked, a flywheel can only store so much energy. It all depends on RPM's, diameter and weight, once these parameters are met, you cannot change this. I never specified the size of flywheels. Again I ask "if I can store 150,000 joules in a set of flywheels, that is capable of storing 150,000, but I only used 100,000 joules of energy to get it to that amount, is this considered overunity?"

I know what you asked and, you have said it again.  IF  I could store...whatever...fill in the blank....

That IF is your overunity.  That is what I am saying.  If you do not understand this, or I am not being clear, just let me know.

IF I had a battery that put out more energy than was put in...would that be overunity?  That IF is very important and a false premise.

You are talking about flywheels which are, as are batteries, energy storage devices...nothing more.

IF I put three apples into a box and then could remove 4 apples, would this be O.U?  See what I mean?

Of course it would be but it can't be done so your premise is a false one.

I hope I am making some sense here.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 23, 2016, 02:20:17 AM
I know what you asked and, you have said it again.  IF  I could store...whatever...fill in the blank....

That IF is your overunity.  That is what I am saying.  If you do not understand this, or I am not being clear, just let me know.

IF I had a battery that put out more energy than was put in...would that be overunity?  That IF is very important and a false premise.

You are talking about flywheels which are, as are batteries, energy storage devices...nothing more.

IF I put three apples into a box and then could remove 4 apples, would this be O.U?  See what I mean?

Of course it would be but it can't be done so your premise is a false one.

I hope I am making some sense here.

Bill
I think what you are saying is you have no idea how I can mechanilly put in "whatever, you fill in the blank" to a set of flywheels in a way that you have any understanding about, so therefore it is as you say "it's impossible"? When I measure the input watts required in this machine in one minute, it is less than the stored joules I've accumulated in one minute. So therefore no more if's, is this overunity?
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 23, 2016, 02:23:38 AM
I understand how to read a watt meter and I can easily calculate joules with http://www.botlanta.org/converters/dale-calc/flywheel.html
I can clearly see that I have more energy stored than required to get it stored
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 23, 2016, 02:24:35 AM
I think what you are saying is you have no idea how I can mechanilly put in "whatever, you fill in the blank" to a set of flywheels in a way that you have any understanding about, so therefore it is as you say "it's impossible"? When I measure the input watts required in this machine in one minute, it is less than the stored joules I've accumulated in one minute. So therefore no more if's, is this overunity?

I do have understanding about this and...it goes like this....

A flywheel stores energy MINUS losses due to friction, etc.  So you can not say that:  I put in 10 units of energy in my flywheel but it only took me 1 unit to do.  If it only took you one unit to do, then you have 1 unit of energy, minus losses, in your flywheel.

That is it...end of story.  Reread my apple example.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 02:25:55 AM
I know what you asked and, you have said it again.  IF  I could store...whatever...fill in the blank....

That IF is your overunity.  That is what I am saying.  If you do not understand this, or I am not being clear, just let me know.

IF I had a battery that put out more energy than was put in...would that be overunity?  That IF is very important and a false premise.

You are talking about flywheels which are, as are batteries, energy storage devices...nothing more.

IF I put three apples into a box and then could remove 4 apples, would this be O.U?  See what I mean?

Of course it would be but it can't be done so your premise is a false one.

I hope I am making some sense here.

Bill




Bill also believes its not possible to eat a Cheese Burger with one hand!!!

He hasnt figured out the Math for it yet however...

Σ4fingers = 0 + 1Thumb = log(1 * Cheese Burger)2

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 23, 2016, 03:19:28 AM



Bill also believes its not possible to eat a Cheese Burger with one hand!!!

He hasnt figured out the Math for it yet however...

Σ4fingers = 0 + 1Thumb = log(1 * Cheese Burger)2

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Chris:

Were your calculations based upon cheddar or Swiss cheese?  Everyone knows that cheddar would require 4 more fingers
from the other hand.  It is mathematical errors and mistakes like this that keep the napkin and dry cleaning folks in business.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 03:25:50 AM
Chris:

Were your calculations based upon cheddar or Swiss cheese?  Everyone knows that cheddar would require 4 more fingers
from the other hand.  It is mathematical errors and mistakes like this that keep the napkin and dry cleaning folks in business.

Bill



Nice Recovery Bill!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 23, 2016, 03:38:58 AM


Nice Recovery Bill!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Thanks.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 23, 2016, 04:10:10 AM
Chris, as Pirate Bill pointed out, your hypothetical 'if' would be OU IF no energy was added from outside the closed system. Using powdered Unicorn Horn would help.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 04:19:41 AM
Chris, as Pirate Bill pointed out, your hypothetical 'if' would be OU IF no energy was added from outside the closed system. Using powdered Unicorn Horn would help.


Hey I get it, this is Caveman Science Humor...

I dont think you have worded your post correctly. Shouldnt it be:

Quote from: MemoryManShouldbe

I am really back peddling now and cant get my sentences out right! I cant rebut your logic and have nothing more to say now...


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


P.S: Youre alright MemoryMan, we didnt get off to a good start. I sense a decent person behind the Keyboard there. At least you know what a "hypothetical 'if'" is. I didnt untill recently.

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 04:53:17 AM



MemoryMan - I will post a video when I find it.

2 AA Batteries boiling 1.5 Litres of water - You think this might be OU.

The technical Term: Molecular Jumbilsation

No Kidding... Cavitation.

This is one example, not the one I wanted: Cavitation Heater - Overunity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjGSXKSLpfY)


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 08:20:20 AM

Related to the above post: Sonoluminescence - Nuclear Fusion (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e62_1354862274) or Sonoluminescence (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tq_gpGVnc4)

Its actually called : Sonoluminescence

I am sorry, i still cant put my hands on this video...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


P.S: Some more data:

Frequency Range: 26,000 - 27,000 Hz
Volume Range: 126 - 130 mL
Input Voltage: 7.00 Volts

URL: http://laser.physics.sunysb.edu/~ziggy/report/reupaper.html


Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 23, 2016, 01:48:32 PM
Actually, Chris, cavitation is an area of energy production I want to explore. Although NOT OU, that does not matter. OU does not exist in a closed system.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 23, 2016, 09:55:23 PM

Actually, Chris, cavitation is an area of energy production I want to explore. Although NOT OU, that does not matter. OU does not exist in a closed system.


Hi MemoryMan - Yes, I agree.

Closed Systems do not allow Over-Unity, because of the "First Law of Thermodynamics" however, Open Systems can show an excess in total EnergyCost.

Mabe you did not watch the video I provided? It is stated many times that that System was measured to show excess Energy Output.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Overunutty on March 24, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
Lol. Ok, so this isn't a "Simple Question", you all agree to disagree on the simplest of parameters, equations and logic. Let's see if we can agree on this?
2+2=?
Or
1.61803 or .61803 = ?
By the way, I love this site
Claude
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 24, 2016, 05:08:32 PM
in an open system, by definition, energy can enter and be added to the pre-existing energy. I don't see how that applies to flywheels.
Also look up Nanospire.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 24, 2016, 09:04:20 PM
There is no such thing as Over Unity.

What you have when you "see" something is only until the unknown interaction is identified and calculated,, then the energy window is expanded to include the "new" criteria and all is back to a conservative energy balance.

This does not mean that you as the operator can not get more out than what you as the operator put in.


Perfect!  I have been trying to explain this to folks for years...all they would do is argue.


The way you have stated it is crystal clear.  Outstanding job Sir.


Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 24, 2016, 09:37:40 PM
There is no such thing as Over Unity.

What you have when you "see" something is only until the unknown interaction is identified and calculated,, then the energy window is expanded to include the "new" criteria and all is back to a conservative energy balance.

This does not mean that you as the operator can not get more out than what you as the operator put in.



The Definition of: Unity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_energy)

Quote

Electricity

The energy unit used for everyday electricity, particularly for utility bills, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh); one kWh is equivalent to 3.6×106 J  (3600 kJ or 3.6 MJ). Electricity usage is often given in units of kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). This is actually a measurement of average power consumption, i.e., the average rate at which energy is transferred.


Interestingly and expectedly, searching Wikipedia for Overunity redirects to Perpetual Motion...

Yet, if one searches YouTune for Perpetual motion, one striking example is displayed: Perpetual motion machine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlx2PgESXhs)

Quote

Perpetual motion is motion of bodies that continues indefinitely. This is impossible because of friction and other energy-dissipating processes.[2][3][4] A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.[3][4][5]


Quite Obviously, this machine, the above Perpetual motion machine works, it certainly is not Impossible as is stated!!!


The Atom is perhaps the best example of a Machine that has been in motion for all of time, since the Big Bang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang), when mysteriously, all of Matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter) sprang into existance from nothing! This violating nearly all the Laws of Physics, especially the one!!!


So, back on track, the Term Over-Unity is terribly defined!!!

But everyone has its definition as: "More Energy Output than You have to Input" - Where Unity is all the Energy You put in, You get out.

Which is perfectly possible, and certainly not Impossible!!!


So Kiddies, it really is time to move on, out of your Caveman Science Classes, into Real Science, where Logic and Common-Sense prevail over Belief!!!


Continuing to completely incorrectly use two totally different definitions for the same thing is Bad Science.




Unit/Unity/Overunity has absolutely nothing to do with Creating Energy!!!





   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 24, 2016, 10:27:16 PM


I think it is just not understood when talking about the conversation of energy.






Again Webby1 - Unit/Unity/OverUnity has absolutely nothing to with the Creation of Energy!!!



The Big Bang did that!!!



Some very poorly educated High School Science Teacher has made a Blunder that has stuck with us, interpolating Energy Creation with Over-Unity, a most unprofessional mistake!!!

Again, Unit/Unity/OverUnity and the Creation of Energy are totally different things, not to be confused!!!


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 24, 2016, 10:45:24 PM


Into an Electrical System:


If we put One Unit into the System...


But we get 10 Units Out of the System...


We have Over-Unity by its very definition:


Quote from: Wikipedia

Electricity

The energy unit used for everyday electricity, particularly for utility bills, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh); one kWh is equivalent to 3.6×106 J  (3600 kJ or 3.6 MJ). Electricity usage is often given in units of kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). This is actually a measurement of average power consumption, i.e., the average rate at which energy is transferred.



Accounting for, Energy Input, into the System and counting this as part of Your Input energy is just nonsense!

Energy Inputs that is not Your Input, is not of any cost to you and should not be counted as part of Your Input Math. Period!!!

EEnvironmental = EOutput - EInput


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Magluvin on March 24, 2016, 10:56:03 PM
There is no such thing as Over Unity.

What you have when you "see" something is only until the unknown interaction is identified and calculated,, then the energy window is expanded to include the "new" criteria and all is back to a conservative energy balance.

This does not mean that you as the operator can not get more out than what you as the operator put in.

I cant totally agree. Ive been down that road you are talking about many times.  But because you have not encountered OU, then a better statement would be, "Not I nor anyone I know have experienced OU yet" Yet is the key word.

A bunch of people say there is no conspiracy of free energy. And if they really have not any knowledge as to whether there are higher ups that try to prevent OU from getting to the masses, then I would direct them to J P Morgans quote to his assistant. It went something like this... "If we build it and anyone can get the electricity for free, then how do I make money on that?", referring to Teslas transmission of power power scheme. That was when he cut off Teslas funding.  And the tower was destroyed.

Look at the GMO food fights.  Look deep into it all and you will find that GMO testing is very sparse and fraudulent. Yet anyone that wants to produce Organic foods have to pay high dollars just to put the USDA ORGANIC label on their products or else they cannot claim it to be organic. and are rigorously harassed about their products, making it way more expensive for the consumer. Yet the GMO gets a free pass. Doesnt make sense. if you look deep into it, they want to destroy all of the natural food sources and replace them with modified versions. And it is as simple as planting a field of gmo next to an organic farmer. When the gmo starts mixing with the organics, the gmo gestapo sues the organic farmer for growing their gmo product without paying for it and makes them destroy all their crops and seed lots. 
There is high cause to believe there is something wrong there. And you will never know unless you look hard enough. Its a big sham. They can patent the gmo but not nature. So if they get rid of nature, then they own it all. And they own you. ;)

See there is a difference between how it goes about with keeping free energy under wraps and the "organic foods are inferior to GMO" deal. The organic, natural food, is and has been out there forever. Cant hide it. Yet. Cant hunt down every organic farm at once and just kill it all off completely. There is too much knowledge of it out there. So propaganda seeps in and little by little convincing all the world that gmos are better than nature. And man, there is a lot of resistance. ;) But OU. Being it would seem that it is non existent, it seems like an easier task to have trolls and shills to take care of the once in a while geniuses out there that come up with something.

I read an article yesterday about how the FDA wants "Stronger Warnings" on certain prescription drugs. Why is that? Possibility of serious injury or death? Well then thats what they should do with guns then. Instead of trying to take them in every way possible, why not just put a 'warning label' on the guns, seeing as they believe it is so effective in saving lives. ::) ::) ::)

Its like this.....

If you say right now that OU does not exist beyond the shadow of a doubt, then what would your opinion be if one day you do experience OU? Would you still stand by your previous statement that it still does not exist? ???

So its best to say you dont know yet rather than stating a 'hypothetical opinion' as fact.  Dont ya think? ;)

Mags
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 24, 2016, 11:40:17 PM
Assumptions :)

Free,, that does not make good business BUT charging for the delivery of "free" is a good business model since "free" does not cost anything :)

Chris,,

1 unit in and 11 units out means that 11 units went in but only 1 from you,, find the other 10 units and how they came to enter and then you will count 11 units in for 11 units out.




Webby1 - Absolutely no Assumptions on my part, its all hard, backed up, with references, real Science, proveable every day of the week!

Surely this is an assumption on your part however, why would anyone be in the "Business" of selling themself short on Energy? Did the 10 Parts "Cost" You anything?

Absolutely not!!! Units of Energy were provided to You freely!

Thus, these Free Units of Energy can not be counted for in the Cost of Your Input.

Its really simple, and you are over complicating for the sake of saving face, also known as Back Pedling.


P.S: Please read my posts, you have stated the blatantly obvious... I reiterate again for your benifet:


Accounting for, Energy Input, into the System and counting this as part of Your Input energy is just nonsense!

Energy Inputs that is not Your Input, is not of any cost to you and should not be counted as part of Your Input Math. Period!!!

EEnvironmental = EOutput - EInput



   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 25, 2016, 12:29:34 AM
Assumptions :)

Free,, that does not make good business BUT charging for the delivery of "free" is a good business model since "free" does not cost anything :)

Chris,,

1 unit in and 11 units out means that 11 units went in but only 1 from you,, find the other 10 units and how they came to enter and then you will count 11 units in for 11 units out.




Also, this is incorrect, you are talking about two different things.

You are talking about total Energy into the System, lets define this as ETotal - Total Units Into a System.

We are talking about the Energy You have to put Into a System, we can define this as: ECost - the Units You you put Into the System.

and  EEnvironmental - Environmental Units that the Environment puts into a System.

Thus:
ECost + EEnvironmental = ETotal <<<--- the total Energy input to a System

and:
EEnvironmental = EOutput - EInput <<<--- The Environmental Energy Input to a System (Energy Losses not included here for simplicity)

However:
ECost + EEnvironmental - ELosses = EOutput <<<--- the total Energy output of a System

If it does not Cost you anything then its Free - Are we agreed on this?

Total Energy Into a System and what You put into a System can be very different.

Example:

You go to the Grocery Store, get 10 Dollars of Groceries, spend 1 Dollar to enter a Competition, at the Checkout you find that you Win 1000 Dollars of free Groceries!!!

Did the 1000 Dollars of Free Groceries Cost you anything?

Well actually, it cost you 1 Unit or Dollar for 1000 Units or Dollars.

You have Over-Unity (More Units (Dollars worth of Groceries) than you started with), 1011 Dollars, or Units of Groceries for only 11 Units or Dollars.


You are confused with Total Energy and the Cost Energy into a System.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: EMJunkie on March 25, 2016, 01:43:36 AM
Chris,

My post to you was after your name.

Energy does not care what or who puts it into the system when you are dealing with the energy balance.

Energy is a tool, it is not a real thing,, Energy is the yardstick we use for comparison.

So,, when you identify the 10 units that YOU did not put in, AND where they came from AND how they entered,, now COE is happy,, that is all there is to it.

When you have the 11 units out for your 1 unit in,, what physics will tell you is that there is something, somewhere, making a deposit for you,, the next job is to find it, understand it and then maximize the use of such a thing.

In my sim that is running with 125% output to input,, I needed to find, for myself, what and how that was happening,, I am not in any way saying that it can not happen, only that when it is seen,,, then it needs to be understood and if possible exploited to its full extent.


Hi Webby, yes I mostly agree with this post. What you are terming as "something, somewhere, making a deposit for you" is what I have termed as EEnvironmental

However, you did say it was not possible:


There is no such thing as Over Unity.



   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2016, 02:02:51 AM
Webby is 100% correct.

Take solar cells.  If you gave one to a guy that had no idea what they were, and he put one in the sun and measured 6 volts/300mA, he would claim overunity as he had not put anything into this circuit but was getting all of this output.

Then, as Webby said so eloquently, someone explains to this guy that the sun is putting out all of this energy, and his cell is only 9% efficient, and if you add up the sun's input, minus the losses...guess what?  It equals the output of his cell.  So, now that this guy knows this...no overunity...just unity as the laws of thermodynamics dictate.

The above is a simplistic example yet it applies to ANY situation you can come up with concerning an "unknown" energy source.  It has nothing to do with believing in the impossible, or saying..."as far as we know"...it is just simple physics with some semantics tossed in.

The energy comes from somewhere...once you know where...it is no longer overunity.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 02:12:05 AM
  Of course, as OU is just a misnomer.  The point is that solar panels once bought will produce energy that does not cost you a dime.
However, storage batteries are another thing, as they don't come with a 25 years guarantee, nor are they cheap nor free.

   Once we know how to manufacture energy, "out of thin air" the batteries won't be needed, at all.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2016, 02:17:10 AM
  Of course, as OU is just a misnomer.  The point is that solar panels once bought will produce energy that does not cost you a dime.
However, storage batteries are another thing, as they don't come with a 25 years guarantee, nor are they cheap nor free.

   Once we know how to manufacture energy, "out of thin air" the batteries won't be needed, at all.

Solar cells do not produce energy...they only convert it per the laws of physics.  I am not sure we are on the same page here.

Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 25, 2016, 02:25:29 AM
Actually, Nick, we already know that. Converting 'heat' directly into electricity has been done, with microWatt output. Scaling it up into commercial products is being worked on. After all, it isn't energy as such that matters, but the FLOW of energy, which produces work. And getting work done is what we all want
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 03:18:44 AM
     Pirate:
    Energy can only be converted, from one form to another, but not produced. So we are on the same page.
    What is producing the energy when a magnet is passed by a coil? That energy is not produced by the magnet, nor the coil, any more than energy is "produced" by a solar panel. 
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Hoppy on March 25, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
     Pirate:
    Energy can only be converted, from one form to another, but not produced. So we are on the same page.
    What is producing the energy when a magnet is passed by a coil? That energy is not produced by the magnet, nor the coil, any more than energy is "produced" by a solar panel.

Nick,

If the magnet and coil are stationary, then no energy is produced. If either the coil or the magnet across one another, then electrical energy is produced from the coil. So, the production of electrical energy relies on movement and movement of the coil or magnet rely on energy supplied to the prime mover. In this case, its a conversion of mechanical energy to electrical energy, with the prime mover being the thing doing the movement. However, If a piece of wood is moved across the coil, or vica-versa, then no electrical energy is produced from the coil, so the materials used have to have the necessary elemental properties to be able to cause a reaction between them by external stimulus. In the case of a solar panel, this is the suns radiant energy being directly converted to electricity by the material elements used in the solar panel receptors - free energy once the panel is paid for.  ;) This is simplistically how I see it.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 02:46:25 PM
     I've heard it all before. It's the same bullshit that we learned in school over the last 100 years. And, is why I say that the cause of this energy is NOT coming from the magnet, coils, or their movement.  But, from something else, instead,  the invisible Aether, along with the Earth vortexial motion, and force field. Which you can't prove, or disprove, nor can current science.
That is the "prime mover", in this case, instead.
 
   The Earth vortexial motion and it's force field is what's moving, all the time, and if it were not so, moving a magnet by a coil, would be like moving a piece of wood by the coils, instead.  The cause is not in the movement, but in the field that the magnet and coils are in. The same field that is holding our planet in it's orbit. There is already "movement" going on all the time.  What we need to learn to do, is to tap Earth's force field. Which is what some of these devices are doing. And is what Tesla has mentioned many many times. Yet our best scientist, don't believe it? They think that they know more about it, than Tesla.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Hoppy on March 25, 2016, 03:07:14 PM
     I've heard it all before. It's the same bullshit that we learned in school over the last 100 years. And, is why I say that the cause of this energy is NOT coming from the magnet, coils, or their movement.  But, from something else, instead,  the invisible Aether, along with the Earth vortexial motion, and force field. Which you can't prove, or disprove, nor can current science.
That is the "prime mover", in this case, instead.
 

Well, I'm totally disagreeing with you because if you take a naturally magnetic mineral like lodestone, how do you think it got its magnetic properties all those millions of years ago. Without the magnetic property, movement would not produce a changing flux in the coil.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 03:37:44 PM
    Hoppy:
   Believe what you like.
   So, you also think that you know more than Tesla?  Just by repeating what you've heard in school, or from the same old texts books, like a parrot... 
   Tesla was wrong,  you are right... 
  Well, you don't convince me with your ridiculous proof up to now. 
  I don't really care if you think that all devices are fakes, and that you aim to prove it, but, with NO extraordinary proof, like you'd like to see from any extraordinary device.

   That's it for me on fakes.  However, that's not it for me, concerning the true cause of causes.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: memoryman on March 25, 2016, 03:42:10 PM
the existence of aether is speculative at best.
IF an imaginary force field were responsible for the electrical output of the coil, neither the magnet nor the motion would be neccessary.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 04:49:17 PM
  It's an imaginary force field that holds this planet in place?  Imaginary? I don't think so..
  Yet, that field is invisible, as is the Aether that sustains it.
  The coils and magnets are how it's been done up done up to now. They may not be the only way to reach our goals of free energy.
 
   Without looking at what causes matter to exist, in the first place. You many not find the real cause of a self running device, which aren't working as closed systems, draining batteries, or connected to the grid. 
  What are they connected to, then, if not the surrounding ambient energies? 
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Hoppy on March 25, 2016, 05:01:05 PM
    Hoppy:
   Believe what you like.
   So, you also think that you know more than Tesla?  Just by repeating what you've heard in school, or from the same old texts books, like a parrot... 
   Tesla was wrong,  you are right... 
  Well, you don't convince me with your ridiculous proof up to now. 
  I don't really care if you think that all devices are fakes, and that you aim to prove it, but, with NO extraordinary proof, like you'd like to see from any extraordinary device.

   That's it for me on fakes.  However, that's not it for me, concerning the true cause of causes.

Woah! Lighten-up lad.
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: NickZ on March 25, 2016, 05:17:30 PM
 
   Maybe, You should lighten up... about your evaluations concerning where the extra energy is coming from, (the wall), 
   I just don't buy it...
   Sorry to disagree.

     
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Pirate88179 on March 25, 2016, 07:32:48 PM
     I've heard it all before. It's the same bullshit that we learned in school over the last 100 years. And, is why I say that the cause of this energy is NOT coming from the magnet, coils, or their movement.  But, from something else, instead,  the invisible Aether, along with the Earth vortexial motion, and force field. Which you can't prove, or disprove, nor can current science.
That is the "prime mover", in this case, instead.
 
   The Earth vortexial motion and it's force field is what's moving, all the time, and if it were not so, moving a magnet by a coil, would be like moving a piece of wood by the coils, instead.  The cause is not in the movement, but in the field that the magnet and coils are in. The same field that is holding our planet in it's orbit. There is already "movement" going on all the time.  What we need to learn to do, is to tap Earth's force field. Which is what some of these devices are doing. And is what Tesla has mentioned many many times. Yet our best scientist, don't believe it? They think that they know more about it, than Tesla.


Come on man, this is like saying that I can place a piece of sandpaper on a block of wood, and it will sand down the wood because both are moving in the universe.  Of course we know it does not work this way.


What we are talking about here is relative motion...the paper to the wood...the magnet to the coil.  To my knowledge, Tesla never said or wrote anything that went against the laws of physics as you suggest.  He was well trained in those laws and all of his work proves this.


If you want to tap into radiant energy, just move a magnet past a coil...but of course, this takes work to do.


Bill
Title: Re: Simple questions
Post by: Khwartz on March 27, 2016, 12:34:25 AM
Webby is 100% correct.

Take solar cells.  If you gave one to a guy that had no idea what they were, and he put one in the sun and measured 6 volts/300mA, he would claim overunity as he had not put anything into this circuit but was getting all of this output.

Then, as Webby said so eloquently, someone explains to this guy that the sun is putting out all of this energy, and his cell is only 9% efficient, and if you add up the sun's input, minus the losses...guess what?  It equals the output of his cell.  So, now that this guy knows this...no overunity...just unity as the laws of thermodynamics dictate.

The above is a simplistic example yet it applies to ANY situation you can come up with concerning an "unknown" energy source.  It has nothing to do with believing in the impossible, or saying..."as far as we know"...it is just simple physics with some semantics tossed in.

The energy comes from somewhere...once you know where...it is no longer overunity.

Bill
Hi Bill,

I remember you there are TWO ratios which near always confused:

one is the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY

and the other one is the COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE, or COP.


The first is about what you say: we just make the ratio of the sum of all USABLE// POWER OUTPUTS and we divide by the the sum of all POWER INPUT.


For the COP it has been made to compare the TOTAL USABLE POWER to the TOTAL POWER WE PAY// FOR, that is what we do in heat pumps calculations.


We pump the THERMAL POWER coming from the environment and we transfert it in the house, for example.

To know the COP we don't make the ratio:

INSIDE USABLE THERMAL POWER OUTPUT under (OUTSIDE THERMAL POWER INPUT + MOTOR CONSUMPTION),

which will give us indeed roughly the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY of the heat pump, we make the ratio:

INSIDE USABLE THERMAL POWER OUTPUT under MOTOR CONSUMPTION

because we might PAY// for the energy to feed the motor of the pump.

And yes, as for the photovoltaic cells, the PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY will be low but the COP is several times overunity.


So, I do agree with you: as soon as we know the SOURCE, the RESERVOIR ("Dirac sea", "Zero Point Energy", Radiant Energy", Cosmic Rays, etc.) then we should be able to demonstrate it will have an EXPENSE in energy with which we will make the conversion, but still, as these energy would be FOR FREE, then the COP is INFINITE, like in any indeed existing "Free Energy Devices" like solar system, wind turbines, hydroelectric power plants.

Note:

It is NOT because the ENERGY RESERVOIR is For Free that it cost nothing to "PUMP" in the reservoir or to CONVERT its energy; its what happen clearly with heat pumps.

But any device has a COST TO BUILT IT and a USING DURATION, and maybe some maintenance to do during its life. This COST should be divided by the number of kWh it will produce during this same period of time, and often, we see that this cost is far to be negligible! This is what make solar, wind and sea kWh having indeed a price so that they are not "For Free", even just taken just out of the power plant.