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

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 Posts: 502949
  • *Total Topics: 15032
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 5
  • *Guests: 15
  • *Total: 20

Author Topic: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity  (Read 605 times)

Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« on: November 25, 2018, 10:11:35 PM »
Did Meyer,  and other similar inventors,   not know what already existed, or was his device supposed to be allowable, if the water did not re-circulate, so it was not self-running , not overunity .

So was he trying to fit it into a niche of sort of allowable .

I don't know how many other inventors there may have been that tried to make their invention allowable, by not making them fully overunity / self-running .

He and others,  certainly seemed as if they would have known what already existed, these inventors were social etc, it seems that at a minimum most people knew overunity devices existed and were suppressed,  although often,  many people would not have known how they functioned .

So when he publicized his invention, he and the media and everyone would have known (  from stories etc )  about  better devices like  self-powered-motor-generators,  so who were these types of inventors trying to fool ( for want of a better word, no disrespect to these inventors ) .

 





Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2018, 12:01:35 PM »
If overunity was already produced, we would not be here searching for it.

Among the "inventors" who are alleged to have found an overunity device are:
- incompetent people who see in their DIY common effects as extraordinary. They are unable to make accurate measurements and to interpret them correctly. They believe they have invented something new when they have only reinvented hot water. Sometimes they succeed in filing a patent. They are sincere but intellectually limited or have a pathological illucidity.
- egocentric people who produce almost nothing real, or things that can never be tested, in the best case a patent, but a lot of pseudo-scientific blah blah that impresses neophites. The most manipulator egocentric become gurus i.e intellectual crooks with a court of ignorant followers.
- scammers who make money from investors who will lose their and will never see anything concrete, or from naive people who will buy their books because they have not understood that if the con artist sells books on overunity and not an overunity system, it is simply that he does not have one! (how is it possible, it's beyond my comprehension  ::) )

The boundary between these categories is blurred, many pseudo-inventors have more or less these character flaws.
All these people, noisy freeloaders, represent a huge waste of time for anyone interested in techniques that could provide us with free or cheap energy.  The sorting to do in what we believe are new ideas and interesting leads is indeed considerable, most of them being stupidities or lies.
For me the main character of Meyer falls into the first category.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2018, 12:08:24 PM »
.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2018, 12:08:24 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2018, 03:02:04 PM »
If overunity was already produced, we would not be here searching for it.

I'm sorry but, time and time again you show that you lack analytical thinking. What is the dollar based on, it was based on gold, what is it based on now?

You guys again found a way to somehow simulate something, now are happy that you were able to do that and present it as reality. Others read it, think how great, and totally ignore me who tries to find out what really happens by the most basics, the movement of the charged particles. Research needs experiments, finding out what really happens.

I found that more than a coil with a few turns, with magnet attached to it, this works much better. I took a hard drive magnet, wrapped it first with an insulating tape, and then with an aluminum foil. Wrapped the aluminum foil with an adhesive tape as well, except the ends, to hold it tightly together. Then measured current through both ends on the aluminum foil, at the side of south and north pole. The hard drive magnet is long and flat, with poles at both ends. So this created something like an aluminum tube, from pole to pole, around that magnet.

Then i measured current through me, holding the multimeter probes in both hands, it was zero as well. Then i measured current through an aluminum foil and me in series, why, because attaching different metals to the body, creates a kind of battery, yes your body becomes a battery, as weird as it may seem. The current was 0.07 uA. Then i measured current through my body and this device i made in series, the current was 0.22 uA, almost stable. Not a very important result, but how can the difference be explained? One possibility that remains, is that my body provides electrons, and then this device really amplifies current. One may come up with one's own explanation.

Instead of the alleged overunity device that they show in youtube videos, i made a much simpler device that may well work much better. This youtube device had an additional spiral attached to it, with open end. This was supposed to gather electrons from the air. I don't know, with a greatly ionized air, this device maybe even worked, maybe not.

I tried that device and a big metal object in series, which supposed to provide electrons, but the current was zero. So how is my body different, is it just more massive and contains more electrons? One may do more experiments, like connect it to the ground, which supposed to provide electrons. Electrons because i don't know that other charged particles move through the conductor, and i assume that all electrons are the same, are they? I also tried a circuit with a battery, a 5 k resistor and this device in series, the device generated zero emf.


Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2018, 09:00:46 PM »
I certainly cannot believe that  overunity devices exist,  imagine if a  'Self-Powered-Motor-Turning-A-Generator-Device'  continually powered a 10000-watts heater or lights,  all that output infrared or other frequency-energy streaming out into the environment,  and the only theorized source would be  aether-particles .

It is claimed to be originally patented in Paris in 1882 by  A.I. Graivier .

Put the following text into normal google-search,  to bring up the relevant peswiki pages -
  "Graivier"   site:.peswiki.com

Pages like the following -
https://peswiki.com/free-energy-blog:2013:12:21
https://peswiki.com/directory:emmett-l-butlers-qmogen

The relevant videos of modern  'Self-Powered-Motor-Turning-A-Generator-Devices' that used to be on those peswiki pages,  no longer exist .

Apparently, the 1882 device and most of the later and modern ones worked by  Cogging-Torque-Neutralization,  an explanatory diagram is on the following post I made -

https://overunity.com/17587/can-anyone-verify-cogging-torque-neutralization/msg515952/#msg515952

At the end of the thread someone posted a much-better principle on which to base the device, and a build, which left the thread obsolete .
____

For people who don't believe overunity devices exist, one reason you don't believe is because they would be impossible, radiating output,  without any input  .
    So why do these people keep on designing and researching and testing in order to achieve it,  it's contradictory 







Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2018, 09:00:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2018, 09:30:00 PM »
Zero point energy is real. And when comes energy from zero point? Also likely all the time. Like when an objects falls to the ground, where does the energy come from? Not from numbers of potential energy written in textbooks, one may also notice that the numbers in textbooks remain the same, no matter how many objects fall to the ground.

There is a thing called law of rhythm. If one has never heard about it. The conservation of energy likely comes from that, everything preserves its integrity. But this law just says that everything goes in cycles, like if we even get an energy from overunity, then we just have a longer cycle where it again goes back to its source. It cannot be prevented, but it may be redirected. It likely doesn't come from the first law of thermodynamics, as many of these processes are even not about thermodynamics. Thus i don't exclude something for superficial reasons, how the nature really works, i must admit i don't know it all, and don't pretend to know.

I don't exclude that there is no overunity either. Which i though consider less likely, like by theoretically knowing that a magnetic field is not symmetric, it has two poles, and every asymmetric field can do continuous work. And that the electrons don't fall to the nucleus even when doing work, these orbiting electrons are also the reason why the magnetic field is asymmetric. And the experiments that i did with permanent magnets, indeed showing more output of energy than input, due to again the asymmetry of the magnetic field. Though this overunity, if present, couldn't overcome friction, and i did the experiments by hand, which everyone can try by oneself, but it adds a subjective factor, they should be done by mechanic tools and all forces should be measured. But i cannot do that, because constant distraction takes all my energy and motivation.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2018, 12:06:39 PM »
I'm sorry but, time and time again you show that you lack analytical thinking. ...
This primary reaction is perfectly normal, you have discovered that you belong to the first category just like Meyer. And it's not pleasant.
 :D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2018, 12:06:39 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2018, 03:18:35 PM »
This primary reaction is perfectly normal, you have discovered that you belong to the first category just like Meyer.

Thank you for comparing me to Meyer, though i don't think i deserve the honor. You belong to the same category with Einstein, and that's not pleasant either :D I would like to be like Faraday, who wants to find out how nature works. Something i don't think you can ever be. Faraday didn't write a single equation, btw. His equations were written by Maxwell, who was a true genius, different from Einstein.


Offline postingsite

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2018, 11:59:31 PM »
Pretending overunity devices do actually work, which they don't,  maybe F6FLT mentioned a source of their energy,  quote - "nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena" ,  although that may source its energy from  aether-particles  anyway .

Quote and link from F6FLT  post-

If anomalous results are observed, which remains to be confirmed, then we may have a theory behind it with nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena. 

https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment/msg525933/#msg525933

I have no idea what "nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena" may be,  or if it's related to the wikipedia page below .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance

I have no idea how gerard-morin's device works, what it's based on, resonance, maybe interlacing the waves so instead of a wave it turns into a smooth signal with no waves ?, is it like a version of  'cogging-torque-neutralization' ,  but functioning very differently,  maybe utilizing "idlle"  moments during the rotors spin to generate more current .

My two theories on where the energy for overunity devices may come from -
   
Energy From Aether
  As far as I understand,  electrons are constantly changing into higher and lower orbits, when they absorb a photon ( and or quarks-? psions-? ) they have collided with, or because they have emitted a photon,  I don't know if protons and neutrons also constantly absorb and emit photons after absorbing photons ( and or quarks-? psions-?  ), so maybe overunity devices tap into that cycle .

Or Energy From The Material That Overunity-Devices Are Made Of -
-I have often read that there is enough energy in a single atom-? or a very small mass to vaporize the earth, if 100-% of the small mass could be turned into pure energy .
  Is it possible that if a  'Self-Powered-Motor-Turning-A-Generator-Device' kept going for 10000-years that you could notice some deterioration in the metal that the device is made of, since it would have been the fuel for the machine

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2018, 11:59:31 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #9 on: November 28, 2018, 10:56:23 AM »
I think it will be caused by electron spin, in the atoms in the core, near the resonant frequency, but i don't know either what the electron spin resonance means.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2018, 11:47:39 AM »
...His equations were written by Maxwell, who was a true genius, different from Einstein.
No sense, it's the voice of ignorance  ::). Relativity is fully compatible with electromagnetism but goes far beyond it. Electromagnetism is a set of relativistic effects on charges, whose Maxwell equations are only simplifications. The magnetic field is the result of length contraction, perfectly explained as the Lorentz transform of the electric field (and vice versa). The magnetic field is the electric field viewed from a moving charge (summarized by E=v∧B in Lorentz force). The apparent inconsistencies of electromagnetism in the treatment of problems with the equations of Weber, Heaviside, Maxwell, Faraday... disappear when we apply those of relativity, it is the ultimate answer in matter of electromagnetism, by far the best one we have now. The others are more for engineering.
It is only when you have studied the scientific and historical aspects of what you are talking about that you will be relevant.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2018, 11:47:39 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2018, 12:12:06 PM »
Pretending overunity devices do actually work, which they don't,  maybe F6FLT mentioned a source of their energy,  quote - "nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena" ,  although that may source its energy from  aether-particles  anyway .

Quote and link from F6FLT  post-

https://overunity.com/17861/bifilar-pancake-coil-overunity-experiment/msg525933/#msg525933

I have no idea what "nuclear or electronic spin resonance phenomena" may be,  or if it's related to the wikipedia page below .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_magnetic_resonance

I have no idea how gerard-morin's device works...

My remark did not apply to Gerard Morin's device (I am sure it does not work) but to a possible resonance effect in bifilar coils or in coils  of Kapanadze and related devices. If resonance applies at NMR frequencies, perhaps Coulomb repulsion could be fought and "cold" nuclear reactions obtained in the conductor or dielectric atoms, which could explain the claims of alleged OU in these resonant coil devices. Of course, the facts must first be verified, but these claims have never been confirmed by independent teams, and my own tests did not indicate anything along these lines. It was just speculation.


Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2018, 12:13:58 PM »
The magnetic field is the result of length contraction, perfectly explained as the Lorentz transform of the electric field (and vice versa).

This is a simple relativity and has nothing to do with spacetime. Like when you walk in the crowd and you walk against the crowd, then you meet more people than when you walk in the same direction with the crowd, right? This is the reason why the wires where the current is in opposite directions, repulse, because electrons in the two wires are then more often opposite to each other, and repulse.

Relativity is one of the principles of hermeticism, the same as the law of rhythm, from which the conservation of energy comes from. These are universal laws, that also apply to structures, not only to a space with three dimensions, which is a restricted case. Like Newton learned hermeticism a lot, and created his theory based on that. But you are not up to the genius like Newton, you are more at the level of Einstein. A learned moron, don't misunderstand, morons can have education and they may know a lot and can do a lot, but what comes to analytical thinking, they show their incapability of such thinking and do it in a very faulty way. I don't say that Einstein was a moron, but his thinking of relativity inevitably reminds me of someone who tries analytical thinking, but is not really capable of it, and comes up with messy results.


Offline F6FLT

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 207
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2018, 12:22:04 PM »
This is a simple relativity and has nothing to do with spacetime...
That's absolutely hilarious!

I too, in the same vein:
"It's a simple electromagnetism and has nothing to do with charge."

Can someone do worse, just for fun?

Offline ayeaye

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
Re: Did Meyer not know what already existed, or was it non-overunity
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2018, 12:54:58 PM »
That's absolutely hilarious!

It is absolutely hilarious that you say that. You now just reject, without even thinking, not to talk explaining.

I have never said that electromagnetism has nothing to do with charges, to the opposite, i said that electromagnetism has only to do with charges. Magnetism is an emergent dynamic phenomenon, caused by the movement of charged particles, and relative effects. Like two magnets attract when the electrons in their atoms rotate in the same direction, and repulse when they rotate in the opposite directions. This is the same reason why two wires with the current in the opposite directions, repulse, as Ampere discovered. And this is yes because of relativity, we cannot explain it when we see it at any moment of time, but we can understand it when we see it changing over the time. That is by how the charged particles move relative to each other.

The same as induction, that i explained in another thread here, how to model it with a blower  https://overunity.com/18033/modeling-induction-with-a-rotating-blower/ . It cannot be explained by seeing the blower only at one position, but it can be explained by seeing the blower at two different positions, at two different times. That's the dynamism that causes these effects, and that should be understood.


 

OneLink