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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: What is free energy and why is it so hard to attain?  (Read 303 times)

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 601
    • My electronics/programming website
What is free energy and why is it so hard to attain?
« on: January 05, 2022, 11:01:16 AM »
Guys, I have been considering and working on the subject now for a couple of decades. Through this time period, I have learned quite a few things. Let us discuss what free energy actually is, not the knee jerk responses normally utilized, and why it is so hard to discover means to acquire it.


First, exactly what is free energy?


Some would use the knee jerk responses of COP>1, Overunity, Perpetual Motion, etc.. These are basically just terms with little meaning, that lead nowhere at all. They are all based upon the law of conservation of energy, the first law of thermodynamics. What is NOT addressed, usually, is that this is ONLY true of closed systems. You cannot use a specific premise (in our case the 1st law of thermodynamics) to prove a general statement (that a system cannot be overunity). It has never been true or logical to do so. Overunity, or COP>1 simply demonstrates that a system in question is in fact an OPEN system. That's it.


When first invented, many scientists applied this claim to everyday tech we use and fully understand today, such as the solar cell. Many systems, such as wind power, water power, etc., actually can be called overunity systems due purely to being a nitpick concerning definition, since WE put no power into the system at all. Some things should qualify already as free energy systems in that work is being performed without motion, such as permanent magnets exhibiting negative acceleration greater than positive accelerations being applied which demonstrate motion in a new, but not classical sense. Electrons spin around atomic nucleus perpetually (by the definition of perpetual motion), creating the overall magnetic field of an atom, but such things as planets orbiting stars, atomic or subatomic particles are somehow disallowed in the discussion, probably due to sheer inconvenience.


All that is necessary for TRUE overunity, is to partially or fully find a loophole in a natural law, an unknown law, or convert a previously unknown or misunderstood form of energy into a form that is usable, such as electricity or mechanical motion.


What free energy is NOT is magic. Any time a gradient of energy exists, of any type, if it can be made to flow, then energy is available to be used to perform work. Sounds easier than it is though, in real life. What free energy is NOT is "free as in pay nothing to get." There is always going to be a cost for energy, of one type or another.


So, now to the next question, why is it so hard to attain?


We humans are quite tenacious. We are tenacious when we are right, and just as tenacious when we are wrong. Presently, we are stuck in a groove, and ego is speaking loud and clear with our specie as usual, instead of utilizing actual reasoned logic, so to speak. We are not finding much overunity because we are not really looking for it, generally speaking. The groove we are stuck in is our current set of beliefs concerning the natural universe. We have refined this view many times, but that is leading to an impasse, since we generally assume that collectively speaking, we know all the basics. This causes us to play with the stuff we already know, in ways already tried, to achieve predictable failed results excepting only a few whattheheck instances. Unless you are trying to push electrons around in a TOTALLY NEW MANNER, then don't expect something new to pop up and rear its head. Occasionally this happens with such things as the joule thief, etc., but such exception is rare.


The basic problem is that you cannot experiment within the box to find results only available outside the box. The same is true of thinking, in that it is highly unlikely that an experimenter will try truly new ideas thinking inside said box. People like Newton and Faraday didn't HAVE a box, as most everything was new to them. They had to invent the box. People like Tesla and the Wright brothers came up with their ideas DESPITE the box. Maxwell had more of a grasp on the nature of the universe than Heaviside who neutered his equations to fit relativity, since Maxwell believed in and formed his field equations based upon the Aether model. The box is already biased, so to speak, by the very people wearing lab coats.


We are still burdened with outdated notions: spooky action at a distance...eeeeeeeek. It is called Quantum Entanglement, as well as probably effects we have not even thought of yet nor given any name to. Big whoop, as our giving a name to something doesn't magically cause it to exist. We merely discover things, we don't create them. It is true also of those claiming overunity -- claiming extra energy is from the Zero Point, or from Quantum whatever, is complete nonsense if you do not actually know for a fact the energy is from those sources.


You want to think way outside the box, then tell me why m=(hf)/c^2, using the rest formula which is accurate if both the measuring instrument and the item being measured are at equilibrium dealing with respective acceleration, concerning frames of reference. You can apply the Lorentzian transformations if you wish to find a more accurate mathematical description when the equilibrium is nonexistent. Why is it highly probable to be true? Because string theory, Quantum Mechanics, and relativity are in practically usable forms (notice I didnt say completely accurate notions).


There is no such thing as solid anything, just self propagating stable waveforms and various field interactions. All we measure are just functions of the previous.


Concerning most of the known forms of energy, such as electricity, we have experimented with to death. Unknown forms of energy are likely to be camouflaged by known types, which I put forth as it would be obvious that something odd was going on otherwise. Such things as Zero Point energy (the unexpected measurable energy that still exists, when it shouldn't by our current understanding of physics, at zero degrees Kelvin). Zero Point energy just demonstrates that we do not know everything yet. Not one person knows if it CAN be harvested, as there has to be a gradient for any energy, of any kind, to flow from point A to point B. It is that simple. I would suspect more forms of usable energy from quantum or string effects than from background energy, myself.


Let me break this down a little. Whether a person calls the something that exists in between particles Spacetime or the Aether, I really don't care. Einstein's spacetime has become so corrupted from his notion that the Maxwellian Aether has essentially been reinvented, anything that can be bent, punctured, dented, warped, expanded/shrunk etc., is a substance, not a nothing/empty space at convenience. People can call it whatever they wish, but it gives off energy, including such things as virtual particles. Virtual particles is a fancy name for unstable waveforms, because they are particles that act like other particles, but seemingly pop out of nowhere and then inconveniently disappear back to nowhere. Makes sense when people quit trying to make nothing out of something (spacetime joke). Many don't even think about the fact that when an electron drops to a lower orbit (lower energy level) it gives off a photon, and this photon is physically bigger than the ATOM that the electron orbits. Lets put this into perspective. A change in orbit of one form of constrained waveform causes a macro effect on a quantum scale yielding a much larger constrained waveform of a different type, based upon predictable quantum actions that we have just not predicted YET, but that photon didn't come from the electron, it came from spacetime/aether just like a virtual particle, but unlike a virtual particle, the photon is stable.


When you start looking at the universe with the understanding that nothing at all is "solid matter" in the sense that we humans tend to use, then things start making sense. You slam your thumb with a hammer, understand that not even one particle touched another. Not one steel atom physically touched the atoms or molecules that make up your flesh. moving field bubbles displaced other field bubbles, thus moving atoms constrained within those bubbles until your digit became misshapen. The entire experience was due to various and in most cases known field interactions.




Start thinking outside the box, and you may well find potential for new energy sources. Think inside the box, and the probability is high that you will not discover much of anything except by sheer accident.