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

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

MN LiveCoach

Masternodes Live Coaching

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83424
  • *Latest: geopopp

  • *Total Posts: 511395
  • *Total Topics: 15229
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Why Over-Unity is Possible  (Read 25688 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2018, 09:46:14 AM »

That is exactly what Maxwell predicted, even long before we created a superconductor
Resistance is a function of heat.
With no heat, there is no resistance.


That is true, but you are not taking the concept far enough. There are also no I squared R losses in a system that can indeed do work as it does creates a perfectly efficient magnetic field. That electric current in a superconductive coil can theoretically flow in a circle forever if their is no interaction with the field it generates. If an armature is turned in that field, also made of superconductive material, the generation of electricity will be at perfect unity and the work performed will be at COP = 1.


Notice that last statement. No electrical non-superconductive system we have can achieve unity. Ask yourself how unity is measured; what system is used? Subjects can become interesting when examining base concepts.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2018, 09:46:14 AM »

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2018, 10:32:27 AM »
With very weak magnets, you can prove that they do work against gravity over time.


Take a magnet that can barely hold itself up on a steel ceiling
And watch it.
Over some time, gravitational acceleration wins and the magnet falls.


I agree with you, but the problem stems with a short-sighted and quite stupid scientific definition for work. Too many physicists are still basing their logic on what they can perceive with their eyes. They cannot wrap their heads around the concept that a mass can undergo a positive acceleration yet remain motionless to their frame of reference and still accomplish work. They hold the god's eye view every time they perform an experiment and most cannot understand even that basic concept.


Overcoming negative acceleration to achieve equilibrium is equivalent in comparison to the same mass accelerated to achieve an equal positive acceleration.  Both are moving, just one SEEMS to be stationary.


Why this is so hard to accept is philosophy. You see, that magnet experiment is just a simple example of common everyday perpetual motion; one example among many. Perpetual motion is commonplace and many physicists do NOT want to accept even the concept of perpetual motion let alone the fact that so many common physical systems are examples by very definition, both on the micro and macro scales of perception. Illogical personal bias, pure and simple. Who cares what anyone does or does not want to accept -- personal opinions and personal desires do not change reality.


If gravity were not doing constant work, expending energy on a microsecond by microsecond basis, every planet and star in the known universe would literally explode radially outward into some really interesting gaseous and particulate forms from centrifugal force.


The expenditure and/or conversion of energy over time actually defines work in this fine universe, not the simplistic third-grade, tinker-toy, mechanistic notion of force X distance which is just one basic type of an example of energy expenditure over time.

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2018, 02:10:23 PM »
There is more to that. A piece of wood lying on tabletop is working against gravity but it's not recognized as work done.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2018, 02:10:23 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2018, 04:00:17 PM »
There is more to that. A piece of wood lying on tabletop is working against gravity but it's not recognized as work done.


Yes, if we follow that logic, the table rests on the earth which is the gravitational source.
So the piece of wood is not “accelerating”.


a magnet repelled in the air is resting on the magnetic field, which sits on the magnet,
which rests on the table on the earth.


the thing about relativity is it requires two perspectives.
and it doesn’t matter which we choose, but both must be present.
an object in motion has no energy.
But relative to another object, it does.
(or the other object does, or we can divide it among them)


The point is, our definition of work is relativistic, not an absolute energy value.


If two objects are moving at the same velocity and vector
they are relatively stationary to each other, and there can be no work done
between them.
However, relative to another object, now work can be done.


The wood on the table does no “work” against the earth
But the table has the same velocity as the earth.
As does the wood.


So when the earth is moving towards a relatively stationary object
the wood can perform work when it hits that object.


how much “kinetic energy” the wood actually has is irrelevant to our
energy analysis, because the work done is relativistic, only to the object
being hit by the wood.


If the wood hits an object that is moving in the same direction as the earth
but as a lower velocity, less work will be done than when it hit the stationary
object.


But the wood still has the same absolute value of kinetic energy
(we just have no way of knowing what that value is)


The velocity of the earth cannot be determined, except in relativistic terms.


energy, as it applies to work is not an absolute value, or even a deterministic
quantity.
But a relative one.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2018, 06:05:10 AM »
There is more to that. A piece of wood lying on tabletop is working against gravity but it's not recognized as work done.


That is absolutely true Forest. However, in no sense of the word is that piece of wood acting under any acceleration other than that of gravity. Gravity is doing work in the wood scenario, otherwise the wood would fly off into space, along with the table it is lying on. It is not resisting gravity at all. Gravity is resisting radial forces applied by centrifugal force caused by the rotating mass of the earth on which both the table and wood are loosely sitting upon its surface. Two forces are acting upon the wood. They are both doing work. The wood is not applying either force upon its environment so is doing no work at all.


The work issue is based upon far too shallow of thought, ignoring common forces. A lot could be excused from science at the time periods many of these things were first pondered, since they had far less information to work with than we do now. It is past time for an overhaul, at least of the base definitions, to bring us out of the 1600's.


So many things break down into circular logic, circular cause and consequence, fallacy of composition and fallacy of division it is not funny, and inherent basal relationships are still treated as if they were somehow mysterious magik.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #64 on: February 13, 2018, 06:05:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #65 on: February 13, 2018, 06:45:28 AM »
I am going to give an example of what is going on, logically, using a word story. I will turn the story into a mathematical proposition to show how it works, mathematically speaking.

A mathematician wakes up one day and gets a headache. He takes an aspirin and the headache goes away, for a time, then it reoccurs later. He takes another aspirin and the headache leaves again. A light-bulb grandly flashes above his head in a cartoon bubble as he gets a new idea.

He puts the situation into a mathematical formula to define the relationship:

First, he assigns variables to the two main factors:

H = the headache
A = the aspirin

Since he started out with the headache, then took an aspirin and the headache left:

H=1

and

H + A = 0

Therefore! (drum-roll)

H = -A

He looked at the result on his chalkboard and mathematically everything made perfect sense. It was also provable, since taking a second aspirin made the equation zero again.

The conclusion? A headache is caused by a lack of aspirin.

At this point the shark has been jumped. The headache is not caused by a lack of aspirin, though the math implies this.

The simple thing is that math can yield a true statement yet be interpreted incorrectly. By itself, no equation proves anything. Math does not prove anything. Math has to be interpreted by a thinking being to have any relevance whatsoever. The thinking being has to approach the mathematics using logic to even have a chance of interpreting it correctly.

Here is a serious clue, even constants in an equation represent something very real in this universe. Nothing stands alone in an equation, since an equation describes the relationship of the (real stuff) quantities involved.

When you find yourself describing something in a self referencing manner for it's definition, you do not understand exactly what the quantity is. You MAY WELL know quite a bit about how it works, but you do not yet know exactly what it is. The one in the first statement (H=1) reflected the cause of the headache, yet was unaccounted for in the logic.


The headache example above demonstrates how an illogical mathematical assumption can be made due to the lack of relevant information, namely the actual cause of the headache, which was NOT a lack of aspirin, rofl.
 
On a serious note, when people try to prove a base definition, what is the response? The moronic statement "show me the math." I will put it forth "show me the logic." Without proper logic the math is worthless.

Offline Belfior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2018, 12:06:42 PM »
I was reading some interesting studies and noticed that many of the equations are the same and just the units change. Like for potential energy and electrostatic potential & gravity.

Is there proof that mass attracts other mass or could it all be electrical attraction? My logic tells me that if we can't find what causes gravity we might be looking at the wrong place. How moderns scientists deal with this problem is that the invent new imaginary things so the math would hold up again. What comes after Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What do we add next so that the theory holds?


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #66 on: February 13, 2018, 12:06:42 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline D.R.Jackson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • My recent developments
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #67 on: February 13, 2018, 05:03:08 PM »
I was reading some interesting studies and noticed that many of the equations are the same and just the units change. Like for potential energy and electrostatic potential & gravity.

Is there proof that mass attracts other mass or could it all be electrical attraction? My logic tells me that if we can't find what causes gravity we might be looking at the wrong place. How moderns scientists deal with this problem is that the invent new imaginary things so the math would hold up again. What comes after Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What do we add next so that the theory holds?

Belfior in Einstein's Special and General Relativity in his mental lab experiments he paints a picture of gravity being the result of the expansion of not just space and time but matter too, where everything is expanding at the same rate even mass ( and so you can not see or measure it because the measuring stick is expanding too even the measuring stick called the speed of light), and hence gravity is merely the large circumference of the earth expanding outwards into new space and new moments of time, where our little expanding mass is merely being pinned against the earth's surface by our inertia.  The earth being very large expands and over takes more space each second than our mass does and so we can not escape its surface acceleration.  Now some scientist do not believe this to be the case so to explain this they instead are looking for dark energy and matter to fill in the space left out by not allowing for this observation.

You have to envision space expanding too and hence the previous space collapses before each new moment of space the same way as previous moments in time collapses before new moments of time, and they all collapse away towards the center of our mass from our perspective.  In effect the center of all mass in the universe is where the previous space collapses into.

Since this does not describe gravity as a field force of attraction we can conjecture then that since we do not have an opposing field force of gravity we can call antigravity found anywhere in nature naturally, then gravity is not a field force at all.  If it were a classical field force then we would have a counter force.  We do however have curved space around planets and stars which is the area at which we encounter the surface acceleration of lets say the earth starting to accelerate into our space if we get too close to the earth.  You can test this with this, the rate of fall of all objects is the same regardless of their weight, if you drop a wood ball and a lead ball from a tower both at the same time the fall at the same rate side by side and hit the ground at the same time, but the mass of the lead ball has greater inertia and so it leaves a big dent in the earth whereas the wood ball does not.  When both are released from the tower they are being suspended in space, and their mass is expanding into space and time, and they tend to want to occupy the space they are in due to their inertia, yet the massive mass of the earth who's large mass and circumference over takes way more space as it expands, expands up to over take that of the space of the two balls, hence in space time it is the surface of the earth moving more than that of the balls.  Hence the term some use "surface acceleration."  This also explains why the perceived rate of fall is squared every second since the mass of the earth and that of the balls is expanding exponentially into new space and time every second.  And well many scientist do not believe this and everyday nearly this year they have an announcement that they have proof for the discovery of dark matter only to have it dismissed in the news the next day.  I have seen this allot this past year, and so good luck on that hunt for illusive dark matter, its beginning to become a laughing stock.

Offline Belfior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2018, 11:40:51 PM »
I have seen this allot this past year, and so good luck on that hunt for illusive dark matter, its beginning to become a laughing stock.

My point exactly. Do we have any proof, that "gravity" can't be something else like magnetic or electric potentials?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #68 on: February 13, 2018, 11:40:51 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3005
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #69 on: February 14, 2018, 03:21:55 AM »
My point exactly. Do we have any proof, that "gravity" can't be something else like magnetic or electric potentials?


We can prove that it is always perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic moment
of a hydrogen atom.


Beyond that the gravitational field becomes incoherently complex
and for all intensive purposes, as elusive as the electrons themselves.


one can’t help but wonder if gravity is somehow different in an electromagnetic coil
or in a permanent magnet


Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #70 on: February 14, 2018, 06:06:34 AM »

We can prove that it is always perpendicular to both the electric and magnetic moment
of a hydrogen atom.


Beyond that the gravitational field becomes incoherently complex
and for all intensive purposes, as elusive as the electrons themselves.


one can’t help but wonder if gravity is somehow different in an electromagnetic coil
or in a permanent magnet


That is dangerous territory there, Smoky

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #70 on: February 14, 2018, 06:06:34 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #71 on: February 14, 2018, 06:15:59 AM »
I was reading some interesting studies and noticed that many of the equations are the same and just the units change. Like for potential energy and electrostatic potential & gravity.

Is there proof that mass attracts other mass or could it all be electrical attraction? My logic tells me that if we can't find what causes gravity we might be looking at the wrong place. How moderns scientists deal with this problem is that the invent new imaginary things so the math would hold up again. What comes after Dark Matter and Dark Energy? What do we add next so that the theory holds?


I am not going to put forth my ludicrous hypothesis, but let me answer your question with a question that begs the question, lol.


If many of the equations are exactly the same, but just with different units, why could that be? Give it some real thought.


Look at the tensor for electricity then factor in Newton into your thinking. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


Examine the concept with two questions:


1. Are they the same?
2. If not, then WHY not? (Due to the apparent equivalence)


Relative equivalence does not necessarily guarantee mathematical equality, contrary to Einstein.

Offline Belfior

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 554
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #72 on: February 14, 2018, 10:51:36 AM »
I can put forth mine.

It seems to me that everything is waves. Light, sound, electricity and even water. Or the interaction is waves. Nature would not have another way of doing stuff. Like everything else grows in the Golden Ratio. That also comes from the same wave idea. Why does everything grow and develop in 1.618 ratio? Study that for a day and you will find out it comes back to a circle and eventually waves.

I think matter is just standing waves or waves of peculiar frequency. This would explain why different theories (gravity,potential energy, electricity) seem to have the same equations, because they are the same deep down.They seem to be different, but then somehow the equations come up the same. We are just being taken for a ride, so it is all hidden in the open. The only place they can be hidden. They just need to debunk, ridicule and push off buildings all original thought.

So a particular apple is just a sum of all the small waves that make up that apple. If we could "record" that wave/sound and then play it back with enough energy we would have just cloned an apple.

I do like the genesis stories where there was just the "word" in the beginning. So the Creator uttered a sound the created everything. Waves again.

Btw you don'tn need hydrogen for anti-grav. Helium works as well and is not flammable

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2790
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #73 on: March 13, 2019, 06:58:18 PM »

Electrons spins because the material receive energy. Take that material in a -273,15°C freezer, and the electron-spin stops. At that temperature, there is no energy what so ever that can be applied to the material. However, the scenario is impossible, because the material will heat up the freezer - no matter how long it stays there, and the freezer is forced to keep low temperature, the temperature will never reach that low.


Vidar

Over-Unity Vs the Law of Conservation of Energy


The law of conservation of energy states that, inside a closed (isolated) system, the total energy remains constant. IE, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only be transformed. This is true.


This law is applied towards the concept of over-unity as a negation, in that, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that the energy within an isolated system must remain constant, then no more energy can be taken from a system than is put into the system. Sounds logical, correct?


Wrong.


The problem is that the people applying the law are misapplying it. Most are unconsciously limiting the measurement of the system. A few do it consciously. There exists a bias in science toward the notion of perpetual motion, when in reality, perpetual motion systems abound in this universe.


Consider electrons. Electrons zip around their atoms, eon after eon, generating their minuscule magnetic fields without any energy being added to the system, though they are by definition giving off energy due to their motion through space/time in seeming direct confliction with the law of conservation of energy and the process of entropy. 


Cosmologists are constantly faced with the big picture. They are forced to deal with the only truly isolated system in the universe, which is the universe as a whole. All other systems within the main system are but non-isolated subsystems of the whole. Cosmologists are starting to understand that space/time itself contains energy, even without the presence of either light or matter.  They are discovering that space/time actively interacts with matter, imparting energy to said matter, and that this principle is responsible for the increase in speed of the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing down due to entropy as previously thought. It is only on cosmological scales that you find systems that can be truly called 'isolated' in any real sense.


What this means, in reference to the concept of over-unity, is that all forms of energy upon a sub-system must be accounted for to determine unity and to consider the subsystem as being 'isolated' to apply the law and the process accurately. Basically, over-unity does not exist in reality, though over-unity CAN exist in practicality due to our lack of understanding of the energy acting upon the sub-system.


For instance, if I hook up a nine-volt battery to an electronic circuit, to power said circuit, can I say it is the only energy acting upon the circuit? If the circuit is unshielded, then I can list numerous forms of energy sources right now which can act upon every wire, coil, and circuit trace within said circuit from outside sources. Many of these energy sources would not produce electricity, such as gravity. Many others might. Some, like electromagnetic waves produced by house wiring, radio towers, power lines, cellphone towers, etc., all the way to lighting strikes and electromagnetic storms in space would all generate from the immeasurable to quantitative amounts of energy within that supposedly isolated 'system'. This electrical generation would be either additive or subtractive to the input of the nine-volt battery when considering the total available energy within the sub-system. This energy usually is given the name -- interference -- and every electrical engineer designing circuitry must find ways to eliminate it for proper circuit function.


I restate, the main reason for the possibility of over-unity is a misapplication of the term isolated system.


Though this may sound stupid, one good example of an over-unity device is a circuit run by a solar cell. It is a matter of subjective perspective. To an 19th century physicist, it would have been almost magic. To an early 20th century physicist, it would have been perpetual motion. to a 21th century physicist, it is what powers their calculators and energizes their house. The problem is that energy can be converted from one form to another. Heat and light, among other probable energy sources, can be converted directly to electricity. However, before their processes were understood, peltier junction devices, solar cells, etc., would have all been deemed over-unity or perpetual motion due to the misapplication of the very laws and processes in question.


Another area for over-unity is a misjudgment of efficiency. If I state that conversion of electricity to heat through a resistance is the best measurement of efficiency, I would be a laughable idiot. Unity is 100% efficiency, or complete conversion with no losses. Many devices could claim over-unity simply because they are more efficient than the standard of measurement used for comparison.


What over-unity researchers are looking for is actually the newest form of 'solar cell', so to speak; a device that transforms one form of energy to another or greater efficiency than the measuring standard. If either is achieved, then the researcher has temporarily achieved over-unity -- until the process is understood and the measuring standards are reset. After that, they simply 'discovered a new solar cell'. 


Paul Andrulis

Offline forest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3875
Re: Why Over-Unity is Possible
« Reply #74 on: March 13, 2019, 07:42:47 PM »
Some inventors from the past stated that electric generators do no convert mechanical energy into electric current. Such opinion looks crazy to us but after investigation I take it seriously. There is no direct relationship between magnetic field produced and the input power of electric circuit. Ampere turns and mass of the iron core is the only limit.I believe now ,that generators do not convert mechanical energy into electricity, they condense magnetic field lines into electric current, probably taking the excess from external Earth field.It's so intense that even now I still need a proof and sometimes lost my conviction....sadly I don't expect anything to change in near future - probably no scientist would take it seriously without strong proof.
But it's here, it's a very important concept and it may save the world

 

OneLink