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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

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: 894391
  • *Total Topics: 15729
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 10

Author Topic: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?  (Read 7898 times)

Offline bistander

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #15 on: March 31, 2021, 09:52:42 PM »
Actually, this is what THEY would have us believe!  OU is possible without violation of the laws of thermodynamics as we shall see sometime before the remainder of this year is complete.

Of course energy conversion can result in apparent free energy (solar) but true FE is possible!

Regards,
Pm

How many times have we heard that?
bi

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline NdaClouDzzz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2021, 11:15:23 PM »
quote: It is a problem  with semantics :
 Overunity  doesn't exist and will never exist.
If you call it  FE  Free energy than  that term  is describing deice that used   energy that is free of charge. like solar , wind,
 etc..
So if energy that is taken to conversion is converted into electricity than that energy  after initial cost of the  conversion device is free.
Wesley

Yep!
OverUnity implies a closed system. It goes against reasoning to think that you can take a 1 gallon jug of water and pour out more than one gallon of water.
There are clearly many OPEN systems that allow you to get more out of a system than what YOU put in, such as the well-known solar and wind generators. But when we talk of OPEN systems, are we really talking about OU? I think not. Why? Because the energy coming in from an open system is separate from what YOU put in, and is thus not part of the original input energy consideration. Yes, semantics!
Bottom line is that the establishment has created their own vocabulary to throw off would-be free-energy enthusiasts. Their goal is to make people think that free-energy is impossible, when in fact we see it all of the time. Take for example a sail boat. Far more energy is captured and transformed into power by the sail and boat than was used by the sailor to hoist the sail. In the free-energy world, this is what we are really trying to replicate. Don Smith's Ambient Energy Generator does just that. A small amount of electrons (the sailor) is used to create a large voltage (the sail) which attracts a large amount of electrons from earth ground (wind) that gets transformed into energy/power far exceeding that used to start the process. The amount of electrons coming from ground are equal to the voltage used to attract them, not the small amount of electrons used to create the voltage. Just like the amount of wind captured by the sail is equal to the sail size, not the energy used by the sailor to hoist the sail.
So ignoring the establishments RED HERRING language like overunity, etc, should be the first step in any free-energy enthusiasts journey!

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2021, 11:33:09 PM »
Dear fellow researchers.
 Few Myths Debunked.
As much as you and I will like to see overunity or ..."something for nothing"...
-we need to understand that :
-physics is based on models.

________________________________
The "Holy Grail" of modern physics is reality based on models.
Physics  doesn't recognize gods, miraculous powers that provide happiness, eternal youth or sustenance in infinite abundance...
Physics doesn't deal with  devils, , angels, politics, racial, gender inequality, sexual orientation... or any of such stories.
Physics doesn't have soul, feelings, emotions, or such...
Physics is one of  sciences..
Darwin  proved that we are animals belonging to mammals  and that is  model that was never  proven otherwise-
(in circumstances different from those present or considered)
Einstein proved  his theory of relativity and  all progress in its physical  form  started from there.
Proof  is  an evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
in physics consequent  proven followup of the theory creates model that  becomes stronger with time as is exercised by number of other  researchers.
If model  becomes outdated or inconvenient based on reality  of the given present time we change it for the new one..
but  history of moderns science doesn't  see such events much  yet.
___________________________________________

As much as you may disagree with my statement  physics doesn't care much...
 
Who backed this expression ' overunity' ?
'free energy' is a Physics/Chemistry official and used expression/term !


Overunity          -  doesn't exist  and will never exist and is laughable as a term.
Perpetual Motion-  is not important to us if was ever  in existence .. it is like spending 1 dollar to gain 1 dollar...
Free Energy       -  exist but  for us this wording is just an abbreviation and has nothing  to do with  mentioned by lancaIV chemistry descriptor.


 
but for us  to do not get lost in the nonsense - we need  some sort of abbreviation for.. what we do.
and we use word: FREE ENERGY.. as we can prove that  energy can be free to us
But  of course ,that energy must have its  own origin too.
and all of it is  because of  the LAW: Energy can't be created nor destroyed..

Wesley
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2021, 11:33:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #18 on: April 01, 2021, 12:55:22 AM »
Free energy costs to produce so  how is it free ?

The easiest way to increase yield is to change an unstable energy into it's unstable state

With out giving an idea away it's already been done, you need to think how you can do just that

the twist is you already have it so again stop thinking like Marconi and think more like Tesla

PS The Tesla car is a joke some where along the line you have to burn stuff to run the electric car
or show me a car that’s American and self charging !

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2021, 01:06:11 AM »

Dear fellow researchers.
 Few Myths Debunked.
As much as you and I will like to see overunity or ..."something for nothing"...
-we need to understand that :
-physics is based on models.

________________________________
The "Holy Grail" of modern physics is reality based on models.
Physics  doesn't recognize gods, miraculous powers that provide happiness, eternal youth or sustenance in infinite abundance...
Physics doesn't deal with  devils, , angels, politics, racial, gender inequality, sexual orientation... or any of such stories.
Physics doesn't have soul, feelings, emotions, or such...
Physics is one of  sciences..
Darwin  proved that we are animals belonging to mammals  and that is  model that was never  proven otherwise-
(in circumstances different from those present or considered)
Einstein proved  his theory of relativity and  all progress in its physical  form  started from there.
Proof  is  an evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
in physics consequent  proven followup of the theory creates model that  becomes stronger with time as is exercised by number of other  researchers.
If model  becomes outdated or inconvenient based on reality  of the given present time we change it for the new one..
but  history of moderns science doesn't  see such events much  yet.
___________________________________________

As much as you may disagree with my statement  physics doesn't care much...
 

Overunity          -  doesn't exist  and will never exist and is laughable as a term.
Perpetual Motion-  is not important to us if was ever  in existence .. it is like spending 1 dollar to gain 1 dollar...
Free Energy       -  exist but  for us this wording is just an abbreviation and has nothing  to do with  mentioned by lancaIV chemistry descriptor.


 
but for us  to do not get lost in the nonsense - we need  some sort of abbreviation for.. what we do.
and we use word: FREE ENERGY.. as we can prove that  energy can be free to us
But  of course ,that energy must have its  own origin too.
and all of it is  because of  the LAW: Energy can't be created nor destroyed..

Wesley
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 03:45:39 AM by stivep »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #19 on: April 01, 2021, 01:06:11 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2021, 01:35:44 AM »
There are many preconceived ideas and notions regarding how excess energy can be generated.......or not.  To really understand how such a task may be accomplished, one must first understand how our electrical components interact with the aether.  A simple coil for example.  Is there a difference between dynamic and steady states in an inductor?  If so, how can these differences be utilized?

Thinking outside the box is mandatory and this box includes formal education.  They don't teach what they don't want you to know!

Regards,
Pm


Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2021, 02:35:47 AM »
                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                            Excerpts From Wikipedia   


"Energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions,
which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.  The joule is the SI unit
of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of
moving it 1 meter against a force of 1 newton.[1]"

Below are some excerpts from the above definitiion (February 2016). These words are the
subjects of other Wikipedia topic excerpts.

The "SI"  is le Système International d'Unités or the International System of Units.

PHYSICAL PROPERTY: "A physical property is any  property that is measurable, whose
value describes a state of a physical system."

STATE “In classical mechanics, state is a complete description of a system in terms of
parameters such as positions and momentums at a particular moment in time

PHYSICAL SYSTEM : "a physical system is the portion of the physical universe chosen
for analysis.  Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in
analysis is ignored except for its affects on the system. The cut between system and
the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.”

OBJECT: “In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body
or object) is a collection of matter with some common attributes, most important, the
spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to
a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media."

TRANSFERABLE: "In the physical sciences, an energy transfer or 'energy exchange' from
one system to another is said to occur when an amount of energy crosses the boundary
between them, thus increasing the energy content of one system while decreasing the
energy content of the other system by the same amount."

BOUNDARY:  (from the Wikipedia topic titled system and the sub heading system concepts)
“System theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. We scope a
system by defining its boundary this means choosing which entities are inside the system
and which are outside – part of the environment. We then make simplified representations
(models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior.
These models may define the structure and/or the behavior of the system.”

MATTER: "Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see definitions below). The term has
often been used in reference to a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass. Matter
is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable
physical objects. [1][2]”

FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS :  "Also called fundamental forces or interactive forces,
are modeled in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems,
evolving over time, that are not (beneficially) reducible to relations among more basic
entities (at prevalent energy scales).  Four fundamental interactions are conventionally
recognized on empirical evidence: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and
weak nuclear."

CONVERTED : "Energy transformation or energy conversion is the process of changing
one form of energy to another.“


                                                           SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                        Omissions from Wikipedia

The words destroyed and created are not topics for articles in Wikipedia.  However these
words are frequently used in many of Wikipedia's science articles.  Some small and
exemplary accounting of their usage is given below

The word destroyed is used 3 times in the article "Matter", 6 times in the article "Mass Energy
equivalence", 7 times in the article "Energy", 1 time in the article "Energy transformation"
and 3 times in the article titled "Mass".

The word created is used 6 times in the article "Matter", 2 times in the article "Mass
Energy equivalence", 6 times in the article "Energy",  2 times in the article "Energy
transformation" and 1 time in the article titled "Mass".
 
The online Oxford dictionary was lacking these definitions (in the context of physics) as well.
      ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   

                       For so long as one is willing to change the definition of energy
                                         one can also "prove" that energy is conserved

The following brief paragraph is a quotation from the Wikipedia article the
“Conservation of energy”.  It is excerpted from a section of that article which is
titled Noether's theorem.

“Since any time-varying system can be embedded within a larger time-invariant system
(with the exception of the universe), conservation can always be recovered by a suitable
re-definition of what energy is and extending the scope of your system."

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                           Excerpts From Wikipedia   

(The following paragraph is also an excerpt from the Wikipedia article titled "Matter").

"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy
(known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

                                                                      ENERGY                                                                       

Energy, what a concept !  What it is essentially, I have never found an explanation of, and
I doubt that anyone is actually capable of making such an explanation.  It may be that we
possess neither the words nor the understanding for such an explanation. 

The concept of energy, for the most part is derived from observation of the physical changes
that occur when energy is transferred between two bodies or systems.  It might be said
that energy has only ever been defined through describing the affects it has.

The affects energy will have when it is expressed or transferred between two objects has
been studied, measured and recorded, with extreme accuracy and precision, countless times
and in innumerable ways.  A great deal is known about energy in this respect. 

Following are examinations of the definitions of energy and work from two of my old
dictionaries.

Webster's New World Dictionary 1956

energy: the capacity for doing work and overcoming resistance

work: the  transference of force from one body, or system to another, measured by the
product of the force and the amount of displacement in the line of force.

The American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948

energy: the property of a system which diminishes, when the system does work on
any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done.

work: the transference of energy from one body or system to another.

It is interesting to note that the Webster's definitions, energy and work are defined by
each other.  Except that the word force is used in place of the word energy in the definition
of work.  Note that a force is an expression of energy that is causing any object to undergo
a change, in its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.

The American College definition of energy says that energy is a property of a system.  This
is an interesting beginning for the definition, in light of  the fact that any physical system
is composed entirely of energy, 100% so.  Matter is composed entirely of energy and I
think that probably energy is also.  Although perhaps energy is composed of some sort of
information that organizes it ?  Even if this is so, the dictionary definitions stand unaffected. 

So to continue.......

energy: "the property of a system"
                  Therefore energy is the property of energy or, energy is the property of it's self.

                      "which diminishes"

Energy is a property that diminishes.  We can safely assume that this diminishing is not
caused by the destruction of energy (else all hell should break loose).  It must therefore be
that this diminishing is either transformation or transfer. I'm guessing that transference is
the cause of the diminishing and will interpret it as such. 

                    which transfers

                    "when this system"
                     when this energy

                    "does work"
                     transfers energy
 
                   "on any other system"
                    to any other energy

                   "by an amount equal to the work so done"
                    by an amount equal to the energy so transferred

And now the complete interpretation.

Energy is the property of energy that transfers, when this energy transfers energy to any
other energy by an amount equal to the energy so transferred.

The only questions I'm left with at this point are:

1 Does it require an expenditure of energy in order for energy to transfer it's self ?
2 Is transference the expenditure of energy or is it rather that, energy IS transference ?

Definitions of energy by the use of terminology such as "fundamental interactions", make
the rabbit hole deeper, but the same questions remain unanswered.  An interaction is an
energy exchange, even if it is "fundamental", and even if it does violate conservation.


...........   ...........     ................


Fundamentally, energy is a concept and an abstraction.  As such it cannot be measured. 
It can only be derived or inferred and most certainly it cannot be conserved. 

Force and displacement can be measured.  I find, for example, in magnet interactions
(in which work input is equal to work output) no indications as to why it should be
considered as absolute that magnets can do no net work, but rather quite the contrary.

Neither do I see any reason why two magnets causing net work would be a violation of the
"law" of conservation of "energy".  I think rather instead, conservation is mostly
misunderstood.  Almost universally and certainly automatically, specific projections and
assumptions are made which are not actually inherent within Newton's laws of motion nor
that bastard child, which the law of conservation of energy is.

There is a thing which we call a vacuum.  There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Within a vacuum chamber the odds are very high, that there are at least some few atoms
of gas remaining.  Within a vacuum chamber we find also, that there are radio waves,
magnetic fields, gravity, other things, and possibly dark matter or even zero point energy
as well.  There is no place known to mankind in which in can be demonstrated that there is "nothing". 

How then is it, that science should even conceive of it, consider its existence as real
or consider that "nothing" could have any effect upon or significance to anything that is
real ? 

The idea of nothingness is rather like a notion from a child's fairy tale, except perhaps that the
tale of nothingness is seldom looked at objectively and has no moral. 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed ?  The idea that energy
or that energy as matter can either spring from "nothing" or become "nothing" is from
any truly scientific perspective silly.  It is barely merits consideration because .....
                   there is no such thing as "nothing" !
How then is it that this seemingly key scientific concept (conservation) hangs from such a
shabby frame work ? 
                          Conservation's contribution to Newton's observations is as nothing ?.


The only functions the  "laws" of conservation have are as:

             1. Newton's observations.
             2. distraction from the one of the few facts known, which is that all answers lead to yet         
                 more questions, or else ..... they lead to dogma.

                             smile .......


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2021, 02:35:47 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2021, 02:37:24 AM »
There are many preconceived ideas and notions regarding how excess energy can be generated.......or not. 
To really understand how such a task may be accomplished, one must first understand how our electrical components interact with the aether. 
Thinking outside the box is mandatory and this box includes formal education. 
They don't teach what they don't want you to know!
Regards,
Pm
My dear friend.
Eather/aether  doesn't exist . Never existed  and will never exist. it is outdated concept.
explained here :
https://youtu.be/7Ldus3AQSpE
WHAT IS TRUE IN  Free Energy
_____________________
My tests led me to  this video :
https://youtu.be/He5xQOJHlrU
Part 2 The Corum and Zenneck Surface Wave guide to  energy transfer
it will send you to  few more videos too if  interested.


A simple coil for example.  Is there a difference between dynamic and steady states in an inductor? 
If so, how can these differences be utilized?
https://www.murata.com/~/media/webrenewal/tool/library/spectre/note_dynamic-model_i101e.ashx?la=en-us

another way to look at it is  :
Concept of Transient State and Steady State
after some time, i.e. when coil voltage drop is equal to applied voltage, then current flowing through the circuit is constant
as inductor voltage is zero which means rate of change of current is zero.
This state is called Steady State.

from all properties of Transient  state   the important is :
transient time:
it is the time it takes for a coil as complex  reactive  circuit  having imaginary  LC+physical R  to change from one steady state to the next.
the imaginary value  of LC is  inductive and capacitive reactance of the coil as the components of total impedance equation.
_________________________
Wesley

Offline AlienGrey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2021, 03:14:08 AM »
Wesley if there is no such thing as zero point energy, then how or what did you generate in Lithuanian experiment
how or where did the energy come from your group generated and how come Bedini, Adrian Gustov, Akula and others
were reported as murdered over there inventions, explain that one please  :'( :'(
« Last Edit: April 01, 2021, 11:06:27 AM by AlienGrey »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2021, 03:14:08 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2021, 03:19:23 AM »
                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                            Excerpts From Wikipedia   


"Energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions,
which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.  The joule is the SI unit
of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of
moving it 1 meter against a force of 1 newton.[1]"

Below are some excerpts from the above definitiion (February 2016). These words are the
subjects of other Wikipedia topic excerpts.

The "SI"  is le Système International d'Unités or the International System of Units.

PHYSICAL PROPERTY: "A physical property is any  property that is measurable, whose
value describes a state of a physical system."

STATE “In classical mechanics, state is a complete description of a system in terms of
parameters such as positions and momentums at a particular moment in time

PHYSICAL SYSTEM : "a physical system is the portion of the physical universe chosen
for analysis.  Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in
analysis is ignored except for its affects on the system. The cut between system and
the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible.”

OBJECT: “In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body
or object) is a collection of matter with some common attributes, most important, the
spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to
a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media."

TRANSFERABLE: "In the physical sciences, an energy transfer or 'energy exchange' from
one system to another is said to occur when an amount of energy crosses the boundary
between them, thus increasing the energy content of one system while decreasing the
energy content of the other system by the same amount."

BOUNDARY:  (from the Wikipedia topic titled system and the sub heading system concepts)
“System theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. We scope a
system by defining its boundary this means choosing which entities are inside the system
and which are outside – part of the environment. We then make simplified representations
(models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior.
These models may define the structure and/or the behavior of the system.”

MATTER: "Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see definitions below). The term has
often been used in reference to a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass. Matter
is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable
physical objects. [1][2]”

FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS :  "Also called fundamental forces or interactive forces,
are modeled in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems,
evolving over time, that are not (beneficially) reducible to relations among more basic
entities (at prevalent energy scales).  Four fundamental interactions are conventionally
recognized on empirical evidence: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and
weak nuclear."

CONVERTED : "Energy transformation or energy conversion is the process of changing
one form of energy to another.“


                                                           SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                        Omissions from Wikipedia

The words destroyed and created are not topics for articles in Wikipedia.  However these
words are frequently used in many of Wikipedia's science articles.  Some small and
exemplary accounting of their usage is given below

The word destroyed is used 3 times in the article "Matter", 6 times in the article "Mass Energy
equivalence", 7 times in the article "Energy", 1 time in the article "Energy transformation"
and 3 times in the article titled "Mass".

The word created is used 6 times in the article "Matter", 2 times in the article "Mass
Energy equivalence", 6 times in the article "Energy",  2 times in the article "Energy
transformation" and 1 time in the article titled "Mass".
 
The online Oxford dictionary was lacking these definitions (in the context of physics) as well.
      ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   

                       For so long as one is willing to change the definition of energy
                                         one can also "prove" that energy is conserved

The following brief paragraph is a quotation from the Wikipedia article the
“Conservation of energy”.  It is excerpted from a section of that article which is
titled Noether's theorem.

“Since any time-varying system can be embedded within a larger time-invariant system
(with the exception of the universe), conservation can always be recovered by a suitable
re-definition of what energy is and extending the scope of your system."

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                           Excerpts From Wikipedia   

(The following paragraph is also an excerpt from the Wikipedia article titled "Matter").

"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy
(known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

                                                                      ENERGY                                                                       

Energy, what a concept !  What it is essentially, I have never found an explanation of, and
I doubt that anyone is actually capable of making such an explanation.  It may be that we
possess neither the words nor the understanding for such an explanation.

The concept of energy, for the most part is derived from observation of the physical changes
that occur when energy is transferred between two bodies or systems.  It might be said
that energy has only ever been defined through describing the affects it has.

The affects energy will have when it is expressed or transferred between two objects has
been studied, measured and recorded, with extreme accuracy and precision, countless times
and in innumerable ways.  A great deal is known about energy in this respect.

Following are examinations of the definitions of energy and work from two of my old
dictionaries.

Webster's New World Dictionary 1956

energy: the capacity for doing work and overcoming resistance

work: the  transference of force from one body, or system to another, measured by the
product of the force and the amount of displacement in the line of force.

The American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948

energy: the property of a system which diminishes, when the system does work on
any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done.

work: the transference of energy from one body or system to another.

It is interesting to note that the Webster's definitions, energy and work are defined by
each other.  Except that the word force is used in place of the word energy in the definition
of work.  Note that a force is an expression of energy that is causing any object to undergo
a change, in its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.

The American College definition of energy says that energy is a property of a system.  This
is an interesting beginning for the definition, in light of  the fact that any physical system
is composed entirely of energy, 100% so.  Matter is composed entirely of energy and I
think that probably energy is also.  Although perhaps energy is composed of some sort of
information that organizes it ?  Even if this is so, the dictionary definitions stand unaffected.

So to continue.......

energy: "the property of a system"
                  Therefore energy is the property of energy or, energy is the property of it's self.

                      "which diminishes"

Energy is a property that diminishes.  We can safely assume that this diminishing is not
caused by the destruction of energy (else all hell should break loose).  It must therefore be
that this diminishing is either transformation or transfer. I'm guessing that transference is
the cause of the diminishing and will interpret it as such.

                    which transfers

                    "when this system"
                     when this energy

                    "does work"
                     transfers energy
 
                   "on any other system"
                    to any other energy

                   "by an amount equal to the work so done"
                    by an amount equal to the energy so transferred

And now the complete interpretation.

Energy is the property of energy that transfers, when this energy transfers energy to any
other energy by an amount equal to the energy so transferred.

The only questions I'm left with at this point are:

1 Does it require an expenditure of energy in order for energy to transfer it's self ?
2 Is transference the expenditure of energy or is it rather that, energy IS transference ?

Definitions of energy by the use of terminology such as "fundamental interactions", make
the rabbit hole deeper, but the same questions remain unanswered.  An interaction is an
energy exchange, even if it is "fundamental", and even if it does violate conservation.


...........   ...........     ................


Fundamentally, energy is a concept and an abstraction.  As such it cannot be measured.
It can only be derived or inferred and most certainly it cannot be conserved.

Force and displacement can be measured.  I find, for example, in magnet interactions
(in which work input is equal to work output) no indications as to why it should be
considered as absolute that magnets can do no net work, but rather quite the contrary.

Neither do I see any reason why two magnets causing net work would be a violation of the
"law" of conservation of "energy".  I think rather instead, conservation is mostly
misunderstood.  Almost universally and certainly automatically, specific projections and
assumptions are made which are not actually inherent within Newton's laws of motion nor
that bastard child, which the law of conservation of energy is.

There is a thing which we call a vacuum.  There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Within a vacuum chamber the odds are very high, that there are at least some few atoms
of gas remaining.  Within a vacuum chamber we find also, that there are radio waves,
magnetic fields, gravity, other things, and possibly dark matter or even zero point energy
as well.  There is no place known to mankind in which in can be demonstrated that there is "nothing".

How then is it, that science should even conceive of it, consider its existence as real
or consider that "nothing" could have any effect upon or significance to anything that is
real ?

The idea of nothingness is rather like a notion from a child's fairy tale, except perhaps that the
tale of nothingness is seldom looked at objectively and has no moral.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed ?  The idea that energy
or that energy as matter can either spring from "nothing" or become "nothing" is from
any truly scientific perspective silly.  It is barely merits consideration because .....
                   there is no such thing as "nothing" !
How then is it that this seemingly key scientific concept (conservation) hangs from such a
shabby frame work ?
                          Conservation's contribution to Newton's observations is as nothing ?.


The only functions the  "laws" of conservation have are as:

             1. Newton's observations.
             2. distraction from the one of the few facts known, which is that all answers lead to yet         
                 more questions, or else ..... they lead to dogma.

                             smile .......

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2021, 04:26:47 AM »
Wesly if there is no such thing as zero point energy, then how or what did you generate in lithuainian experiment
how or where did the energy come from your group generated and how come Badini, Adrian Gustov, Akula and others
were reported as murdered over there inventions, explain that one please  :'( :'(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
zero point energy
__________________________________________________
how or what did you generate in lithuainian experiment
We generated  subsequently  ~60W than ~300W than ~680W  than ~1kW at output.
I'm not sure if we could call it 1kW/h as we didn't run  it for an hour.

the energy origin was  assigned to NMR phenomena in that special  ferrite Yoke from Russian TV Rubin that was doped with
some isotopes
__________________________

Another experiment I have made :
1. I Took two  half's of C  shape ferrite.
2. I winded on  first  C  some winding e.g 200 winds at  gauge  20.
3. wind on second C  the same
4. I put the C together creating closed core of rectangular shape with two separate windings . one on the left the other on the right .
5. next step is  to make sure that   both C are  vertical  but could be horizontal too. I  placed them vertical. (one on the left the other on the right .)
6. now I  separated the halves of the  ferrite  so in the middle I have a gap  like 0.7cm at upper  and lower half. ( distance is not critical the smaller the better.
7. I placed two round small flat discs of magnets at upper gap and at lower gap I might  also  use electrical tape or little  glue but  magnets must  contact the flat  square cross section of  each ferrite.
8. I placed  in both gaps in the middle  the small isotope   from  smoke detectors the  bigger  the better.
9.  I played  with polarity of magnets and distance between halves ( the smaller gap the better.)
10. small  LED can be  connected to one of windings  but   I used 10W tungsten Light bulb.
11.than I tried   to  short and open  one winding
 while that  winding  is interrupted  the lightbulb connected  to another winding  will light up.
___________________________________________________
the configuration  from above will work  as well with just  one single winding  on just one C  shape half of the ferrite core.
while the second halve C shape of ferrite has no winding at all.
In this configuration I achieved steady  glow of 10W tungsten lamp.
But  I  used slightly  bigger and different isotope.
Note: If there is only one winding than there is nothing to short.
___________________________________________________
So it must be some variables for it to work..
Yes..
bombardment..
the delta T between  each  particle  ...

________________________________________________________

Another better   way is to play with beryllium  window
read what happens when alpha particle hits  beryllium plate .
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/6237-beryllium-9-gets-hit-by-alpha/
This  thing  makes huge difference in power out. Yes..  I mean huge...
and word huge is even to small here.

SO NOW THINK.. think my friends.....
THAT THIS FERRITE FROM Russian TV Rubin HAD BERYLLIUM DOPING.....in it..but  even worse than that .. it had something else..
And that was a reason we stopped to  play with it..
But Arunas still  doesn't know why I  gave up on it.



Don't ask me more about it  I already  said to much..
This   is not  for general public  although  license  is not required for old type of  Americium  sources from old smoke detectors.

Wesley

PS: I explained Lithuania experiment many times..
The variables were given by two 1W generators.. for more information go to  T 1000 Arunas.
 He is mastermind in it.. and he is on this forum.


Legal note:
I don't  recommend   to any one to use it or play with it .
 I kept my post in   language that is  using words : I do,
I try, I make..
avoiding any direct form of  me suggesting  to anyone to play with it.
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #25 on: April 01, 2021, 04:26:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4351
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2021, 12:33:03 PM »
AlienGrey,'free energy' has nothing to do with monetary meanings !
Free energie is - in nano time units - shortly ' unbonded' energy !
From second unit view relatively fast recombination= re-bonding !
Cause this future converter works in THz level and beyond !



Free energy can be also the result from natural/enforced elementar decay !
Nuclear energy ! And in electricity/electron-gas/ion-gas/plasma is nuclear actio/reactio inside !


 Sincere
OCWL

Offline stivep

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #27 on: April 01, 2021, 02:19:48 PM »
how or what did you generate in lithuainian experiment ?
how or where did the energy come from your group ?
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
zero point energy
__________________________________________________
how or what did you generate in lithuainian experiment
We generated  subsequently  ~60W than ~300W than ~680W  than ~1kW at output.
I'm not sure if we could call it 1kW/h as we didn't run  it for an hour.

the energy origin was  assigned to NMR phenomena in that special  ferrite Yoke from Russian TV Rubin that was doped with
some isotopes
__________________________

 to understand this you need to read carefully that:
https://overunity.com/18815/has-anyone-here-constructed-an-overunity-system-that-works/msg556423/#msg556423
( my post from above)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
//....were reported as murdered over there inventions, explain that one please//  :'( :'(

As far as  murders and Putin   in this case...
Every country has enough money to test crazy ideas.
Every country has its own patent office
Every country  government  is a power of its own  on their own territory.
Most of them already have tested  some forms of FE
 the Lithuania Experiment , 1kW   Out      https://youtu.be/gKkcdfSdt5Q?t=1061 
 the Harold COLMAN & Ronald GILLESPIE  1kW out    Power Generator http://rexresearch.com/colman/colman.htm
 the  Hendershot  device .. few hundreds  W.

all of the concepts can  be look at its similarities.
-the  set of the same mechanisms is taking place there
despite  what isotope did you use  against  Beryllium window or doping or  ....
https://youtu.be/0xXZT7YQDE8?t=512
_____________________________________

Governments don't need you to interfere  so  at first you are donor of information and experience
and the next thing is to make you silent.
Unless  "they" are to late ...
or        "they"   can't touch you as  than  information  will be released  to general public.

Wesley

Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #28 on: April 01, 2021, 04:46:29 PM »
If I may, I'll share a true story about a conversation I had years ago with one Bill Wampler.  Bill has now passed on but his work continues as far as I know.  I became aware of Bill thru a family relative who knew I was working on such devices but she would not even give me a number to call but rather told me that Bill would contact me if he so desired.  Two weeks or so passed and I did receive a call from Bill and we talked for over an hour about his work.

Bill made millions manufacturing desalination equipment that he supplied worldwide.  He re-invested into a small discrete and very private and secure R&D firm to research FE.  Long story short, they developed and manufactured a ~10kW black box that they gave away to poor 3rd world countries that needed electricity to purify water, etc.  I quizzed him why he didn't market the product commercially and he said the governments wouldn't allow that to happen.  During their development stages, they were raided by the ATF (because one of his employees told a friend about their work) and they confiscated all documentation and prototypes.  They fortunately kept redundant records and materials so were able to continue on after relocation.

I of course questioned him on the theory of operation and all he would give for details was the fact that it was solid state with no moving parts and needed a battery to start.  Once running, it was a stand alone generator.

I will never forget what he told me about the basics however.  He stated that energy was all around us all the time and the first problem was to figure out how to collect or cohere it!  The second problem was to figure out how to control it.  He said the second problem was the most difficult for them to solve!

Now I'm not sure Wesley, but this sure sounds like energy extraction from the aether to me!

I would also like to ask a question of anybody here,  when I energize an inductor with di/dt, exactly what is happening?  I mean, what is induction or inductance?  Hint-what is 'S' flow?

Regards,
Pm
 

Offline partzman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
Re: Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2021, 04:57:41 PM »
I would also like to share a concept that would be the basis for a FE device in the attached pdf.

Regards,
Pm

 

OneLink