Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Why Over-Unity is Possible  (Read 61640 times)

#### shylo

• Hero Member
• Posts: 540
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #15 on: November 17, 2016, 11:23:17 PM »
I will demonstrate my point with the magnet.
W=Fd (Work equals Force times distance)
F=W/d (Force equals Work divided by the distance)

If this ended here, that would be that, so to speak. However, there is more than one way to skin a cat, again so to speak. Yes, I like colloquialisms.

F=ma (Net Force equals mass times acceleration)

So, we are stuck with distance, and since the magnet appears to be stationary, how does that work?

d=vt (distance equals velocity times time)

Therefore, a 5g magnet hanging on the ceiling, overcoming a 9.18 ms/s downwards acceleration to remain at equilibrium yields:

F=45.9 Newtons
d= 9.18 meters is the distance the magnet has to move every second to overcome gravity.
W= 5 Joules per second required to remain in equilibrium.

If the 5g magnet were an electromagnet, those 5 Joules would be in electricity. Whether talking natural or artificial magnet fields makes no difference, as the work is still 5 Joules per second.
I agree.
Now add multiple fluxuating fields, it changes everything.
artv

#### norman6538

• Hero Member
• Posts: 570
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2016, 01:50:56 AM »
Overunity does exist.

1. the Finsrud rolling ball.

2. my pendulum that is dropped from 2 o'clock and goes down and up to almost
noon and then is not stuck there.
This pendulum starts at 2 oclock and drops past 10 oclock and on
up to noon and then falls down to 6 without getting stuck at any of the magnet
sticky spots along the way. It is a careful tuning of magnet, gravity and inertia
forces that make it work. The question is where does the energy come from to make
it pass 9 oclock? Pendulums normally do not pass their dropping point.
There are no batteries or anything hidden - just magnets and a pendulum carefully
arranged and adjusted to get that extra 2 hrs of motion. It would be similar to
the Finsrud device in very simple terms but does not run itself.
I wanted this to be very simple so there can be no arguments.
The magnet under the paper pointer is vertical and a neo while the radial magnets
are lying down flat all in the same polarity.
I place them on metal to make it easy to make fine adjustments.
The very sad thing is that not one person has even tried to replicate it.

3. and my slider  here
http://www.overunity.com/14876/permanent-magnet-ou-machine-working-today/msg414883/#msg414883

But who cares ??

Norman

#### memoryman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 758
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2016, 03:35:15 AM »
pauldude000:
1: "W= 5 Joules per second" is wrong use of units.
2: "d= 9.18 meters is the distance the magnet has to move every second to overcome gravity." the magnet DOES NOT MOVE. That is the point.
Without rigor in the use of units, the result is wrong.

#### pauldude000

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2016, 08:07:08 AM »
pauldude000:
1: "W= 5 Joules per second" is wrong use of units.
2: "d= 9.18 meters is the distance the magnet has to move every second to overcome gravity." the magnet DOES NOT MOVE. That is the point.
Without rigor in the use of units, the result is wrong.

1. Work is measured in Joules. I demonstrated work over a period of one second, so it is indeed 5 Joules per second. Look it up if you don't believe me. I can provide a link (or several) if you need.

2. I cannot help if you are falling prey to an optical illusion. Discounting velocities because they are inconvenient to your philosophy doesn't help your case.

Here is an experiment that will demonstrate your error in logic.

Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight and place it next to the magnet and let go.

The brass weight is the same mass and gravity is exerting the same downward acceleration upon it as it does the magnet. You will find that the brass weight immediately accelerates downward to the floor at 9.18 Ms/s. That is the normal acceleration of a mass in that instance. You can repeat it with another type of nonmagnetic matter weighing 5g if you wish. The fact that the magnet APPEARS motionless is an optical illusion. It is accelerating upwards at equal or greater speed than gravity is accelerating it downwards, as the brass weight demonstrated. What this means is that the relative motion of the magnet is equal to or greater than 9.18 Ms/s. The magnetism is moving the mass of the magnet not the other way around -- you just can't see it, though you can indeed measure the motion by the apparent lack of motion which SHOULD be there.

Another way to look at it. Take a 500g electromagnet of sufficient strength to hold it against the same steel plate on the ceiling as the previous logical experiment. Hook up the current and measure the amount of energy used to hold it in place. Next -- turn off the switch. If no work is being done, then the net work is zero Joules and no energy is required. If no work is being done, then even with the switch off the electromagnet will miraculously stay on the ceiling. Something tells me that isn't going to be the result, just call it a hunch.

#### forest

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4070
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2016, 08:42:09 AM »
I proposed long time ago a quite simple (for the scientists) experiment. Look here https://www.ted.com/talks/boaz_almog_levitates_a_superconductor?language=pl

I proposed to construct the most powerful magnet in the form of sheet around the tiny superconductor with isolation between them so it will looks like a round sheet piece of metal. The magnet must be very powerfull and ll must withstand low temperatures.

NOW , you may realize what I'm about. if that complex structure is able to levitate ALONE when put in very low temperature then we have a massive amount of data to modify our current theories.

#### lancaIV

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 5166
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2016, 09:03:22 AM »

I = 13,8 mA und U = 3 V                                Zugkräfte= traction forces about f.e. 1.000 N

Hubkraft =  lifting    force ?

For the above concept instead /or with battery  a thermocouple/thermopile arrangement to get the high magnetic field force :

#### bitbo

• Newbie
• Posts: 30
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #21 on: November 18, 2016, 01:26:20 PM »
I hope we can agree that kinetic energy of the sack at the ground will be smaller comparing to the normal fall  from the same height as magnet slows down the fall.
Yes, everyone here should agree !

[/size]Now, where is this energy difference lost?
Gravity performed work.
So did magnet preventing fall at the beginning.
So who paid for this "slowdown"? Marcel
You gained a "speedup" when attaching the bullets ti the magnet!
(the magnet "liftet" the bullets the last centimeter - your hand did not need to lift the bullets the last centimeter)

Just my 2 cents [/size]

#### memoryman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 758
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2016, 02:16:33 PM »
As i said, get your units straight.
"It is accelerating upwards at equal or greater speed than gravity is accelerating it downwards, as the brass weight demonstrated. What this means is that the relative motion of the magnet is equal to or greater than 9.18 Ms/s." you meant : 9.18 m/s^2.
The magnet is attracted to the plate by an force > than g; the plate exerts a downward force so that the magnet remains motionless. The magnet does not move wrt the plate.

#### MT

• Full Member
• Posts: 102
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #23 on: November 19, 2016, 10:02:41 AM »
You gained a "speedup" when attaching the bullets ti the magnet!
(the magnet "liftet" the bullets the last centimeter - your hand did not need to lift the bullets the last centimeter)

Yes, just this is another typical physics answer. A magnetic object in a magnetic field is somehow "precharged" to energy needed to get it out of there. Similarly in gravitation field an object at height h is somehow "precharged" to potential energy equals mgh. Using those concepts energy is conserved, there is no gain, total sum is zero.
But still gravity or magnetism can and does perform work. Where it gets it energy from? I can lift bullets to the bucket at ceiling but i need calories for this work. Then last centimeter is lifted by magnet. Eventually bucket will detach and fall down by gravity doing work. Did gravity or magnet got weaker by working? apparently not. Did they got energy for foing this from the teoretical physical concepts so it all fits the conservation law? This is hard to believe.
So what is the source that provides for gravity force that can perform infinite amounts of work?

« Last Edit: November 19, 2016, 08:43:48 PM by MT »

#### pauldude000

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #24 on: November 20, 2016, 04:03:25 AM »
As i said, get your units straight.
"It is accelerating upwards at equal or greater speed than gravity is accelerating it downwards, as the brass weight demonstrated. What this means is that the relative motion of the magnet is equal to or greater than 9.18 Ms/s." you meant : 9.18 m/s^2.
The magnet is attracted to the plate by an force > than g; the plate exerts a downward force so that the magnet remains motionless. The magnet does not move wrt the plate.

Actually, where my error comes in is saying 9.18 instead of 9.81 (9.806 to be more correct) Meters per second, per second. (Often referred to as s^2). Your reference and quote of my words in response to your claim of my units being incorrect was specifically concerning using Joules for work. Since Joules are the standard measurement of work, you were wrong. I did make an error, but you didn't even catch it.

Now, you are basically using the classic teachers work explanation model of the hypothetical waiter's tray. Once lifted to a position it requires no work to keep it in that position. However, anyone but a high-school level physics grad knows that such an example carries a caveat, in that it is true only if no other force is acting upon the tray. In our case, and in a real world case even considering the waiter's tray, this force is gravity. That type of purely mechanistic scenario ONLY deals with inertia and only works if the waiter can remove his support from the tray and it remains motionless (say on some spaceship sufficiently far from a significant source of gravity) which demonstrates no work is necessary to maintain the position of said tray.

This type of 'work' is often referred to stupidly as 'negative work', in that it is a matter of philosophy that someone had to invent such a silly notion, all because of an inherently badly worded and misleading moronic base definition. However, there is logically only work.

By the way, who cares if the magnet moves in relation to the plate? A drunk driver is not moving relative to the car that he used to smash through a brick wall, but that proves exactly the same thing as your example -- nothing. The plate is not the issue. Gravity and the magnetic force acting upon the mass of the magnet are the issue. The only purpose for the plate  in the scenario is that it will give the magnetic field something to pull against. The scenario could be easily modified by stating that the field of the magnet is capable of lifting only the 5g mass of the magnet, and your notation becomes irrelevant anyway, since the weight of the magnet itself cancels out any supposed pressure applied by the plate.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2016, 10:37:08 AM by pauldude000 »

#### memoryman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 758
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2016, 02:42:09 PM »
I did catch your errors, but concentrated on specific ones. Joule is unfortunately used both as a unit of work and energy; hence confusion. Your arguments and analogies are faulty. That's why nobody actually produces OU. They just talk about it. That's also why I usually respond with minimal words; I have better things to do than convincing flat earthers.

#### pauldude000

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #26 on: November 21, 2016, 09:01:18 AM »
I did catch your errors, but concentrated on specific ones. Joule is unfortunately used both as a unit of work and energy; hence confusion. Your arguments and analogies are faulty. That's why nobody actually produces OU. They just talk about it. That's also why I usually respond with minimal words; I have better things to do than convincing flat earthers.

Such snarkiness! (E for effort I guess.)

Yes, Joules are used for both energy and work. I wonder why.

It couldn't be that energy is the ability to do work, therefore when work is done the amount is expressed in the amount of energy used. :-) (The two definitions are tied together, that's why.)

No confusion here son. Just claiming my arguments and analogies are faulty without demonstrating why is a cop-out.

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1317
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #27 on: November 22, 2016, 06:05:07 PM »
@Paul
Quote
Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight and place it next to the magnet and let go.

Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight with double sided tape attached and stick it next to the magnet and let go.

As we can see there is little difference between a magnetic field and a piece of double sided tape and both would seem to defy the force of gravity. Understand gravity is not an acceleration but a force which may cause an acceleration. As well the work (a force acting through a distance) performed when the magnet stuck to the plate is equal to the work required to remove it... sum zero.

On the issue of free energy and magnets all that is required is to change the work performed in removing a magnet from the mutual field of attraction it has induced in another object. It does not matter how we do this only that we do and if the total change in work is greater than the work required to invoke the change to remove the magnet then we have produced a gain in the system. Can it be done?, some patents have suggested it can be done however for us this remains to be seen.

AC

#### memoryman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 758
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #28 on: November 22, 2016, 06:58:35 PM »
Well said, Paul.Energy is conservative, but WORK is not...
Now start to think about how this can be used.

#### pauldude000

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #29 on: November 22, 2016, 10:22:51 PM »
@Paul
Experiment: Take said 5g magnet and touch it to a steel plate mounted to the ceiling. At the same time, take a 5g brass weight with double sided tape attached and stick it next to the magnet and let go.

As we can see there is little difference between a magnetic field and a piece of double sided tape and both would seem to defy the force of gravity. Understand gravity is not an acceleration but a force which may cause an acceleration. As well the work (a force acting through a distance) performed when the magnet stuck to the plate is equal to the work required to remove it... sum zero.

The sticky tape analogy is extremely loose, basically another illusion. Similarity in behavior does not yield equivalence unless all of the factors are equally equivalent. What we have with a magnet vs the tape is that the tape mechanically bonds the mass to another mass, making the two into one as far as gravity is concerned. With the magnet, it is falling, but being pulled in the opposite direction at an equal or greater rate by a different force.

I agree that if we were approaching this matter on the quantum level, it would get a lot fuzzier in clarity. This is especially true since every interaction between the packets we collectively call matter are merely field interactions of various types, but we are working with the macroscopic scale and are therefore approaching this with a mechanistic viewpoint. However, we cannot blind ourselves by using it exclusively.

The problem I have with the definition of work is that it actually allows violation of the conservation principle due to an old, outmoded notion of the concept we call work. Any system which does not move an object, but necessarily expends energy is a violation of the conservation principle. Due to the work definition, since no mass was moved spatially, no work is done. However, energy is the capability of doing work. Energy as a term can be looked at as potential or kinetic. Stored energy (no work) is potential, expended energy is kinetic. No work being done requires conservation of the energy in the system. Therefore we end up with a paradox due to definition. The magnet scenario has to expend energy to overcome a force, therefore energy is being used. If no work is being performed, then no questions have been answered, only new ones raised.

With our current understandings, the definition of work should be the expenditure of energy within a system. This would inherently open up the concept to account for new understandings of field and force interactions, while still maintaining all of the laws.