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

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: 514762
  • *Total Topics: 15317
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)  (Read 31523 times)

Offline Esotericman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2007, 11:25:51 PM »
It is absolutely a question of semantics.  What you call the Aether, I call Stored Potential Energy In the Universe.
And yes, Einstein had plenty to say about the Aether!  In fact, it is expressed in his General Theory of Relativity as the universal constant!  Of course, we know today that this constant existed only to force his equations to model a steady-state universe, which we know by observation is simply not the case.

I see that many on this site seem determined to reject the laws of physics simply for the sake of rejecting them.  You observe data which can be described by conventional laws, yet choose to invent other ways of explaining them!  Well, you can call a tail a leg all you want, but that doesn't mean a horse has 5 legs.

I signed on to this site assuming the use of the term OverUnity (which is, as I mentioned, defined by Thermodynamics) meant that people here were willing to be scientific.  Instead I am criticized as being "religiously" devoted to conservation of energy by some who, despite a complete lack of evidence, believes the opposite!  And <i>I'm</i> being religious?!  There is nothing scientific about blind faith!

So maybe I do need to start a new website after all...  where people conduct research into devices which seem to do the impossible, on a quest to quell the world's energy appetite.  Hmm... thought there was one already...

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline Moab

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 303
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #31 on: November 09, 2007, 12:04:35 AM »
>Moab picks up marble from Gabbys table, and bounces it off Gabby's forhead>
>They both ponder how meny million years that potential energy was stored in the imagened marble that caused the lump on the Overunity Unit known by the photons in an imagened mirror on Gabby's forehead>

 <Moab rubs chin,, scratches head>

 <Gabby rubbs forehead yelling obcenities at Moab>

 <both have a snickers bar and a cup of joe and call it a day>  The end. ;D sorry bout that lump there G.


Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2007, 12:16:36 AM »
OU is a matter of perspective.

The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".

When you realize that we have tunnel-vision in respect to electricity and magnetism (and pretty much everthing else) and that there is more to it than that which we see and measure, then the possiblilty of converting another form of energy into the form we want is pretty damn possible.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #32 on: November 09, 2007, 12:16:36 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
a world after phsyics
« Reply #33 on: November 09, 2007, 06:49:06 PM »
My purpose in being here is to try and make free energy arguments a little less rediculous- that is, less likely to be utterly ridiculed by the scientific community at large... 

How exactly are you helping again?


oh, I thought it was okay for me to behave silly in this topic because I'm a free energy researcher.

Cant have it both ways you know..

 ::)

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2008, 01:04:04 AM »
Hello all.

I'm transferring my comments from another less-appropriate forum, so here's my 2c as I do enjoy adult   debate about this subject in particular...

In response to another quote elsewhere:
Quote
Do you think that it is possible that COE may be violated?

Only if one were to consider CoE in the conventional sense, but what of the laws governing atomic particles and electrons orbiting nuclei in perpetuity.

I believe that the analogy of a spinning skater with arms outstretched or drawn in to spin faster is groundless from the point of energy creation. Slower rotational speed with outstretched arms would possess greater rotational torque, with torque as the trade-off for speed when the skater drew in their arms. However, the actual kinetic energy (i.e. rotational inertia) contained in both cases would be exactly the same. CoE exists even should the skater repeatedly raise and lower their arms. No energy could be tapped off - other than an energy surplus from the action of raising and lowering the arms !

Heating a material will create greater excitation of atoms such that continued heating beyond a critical point causes molecular bonds to break apart and re-form with other elements to create different materials (such as when you cook food or burn paper for example), though a mildly-heated metal sample that does not alter its molecular composition will then liberate latent heat as atomic excitation reduces to a level commensurate with the ambient temperature once the heat is removed. Again, we have neither created or destroyed energy.

OK, so in this case, inducing a change in sub-atomic charged particle excitation requires energy for the heat to be "absorbed", for which there is a counter reaction when the heat is removed as the charged particles settle back and excitation reduces to a former level. This is the conventional science that is observable at the macro level.

But what about those perpetually moving charged particles in all matter. Are they absorbing conventional energy in doing so, even when proportional to temperature? The answer is no, as at macro level it is not conventionally possible to generate energy and sustain momentum from a substance held at a constant temperature and pressure as a differential would be called for. It may be argued that there are aspects of zero friction at atomic level, but if this were the case then why does a material then liberate its latent heat once the heat source is removed, as you would then expect the atomic excitation gained from heat to always be absorbed and held within the material - with no frictional component to cause the opposite effect and liberate heat in return?

OK, so what about thermo-couples (two dissimilar metals in electrical contact which liberate a voltage in response to heat)? Here a tiny voltage is produced at albeit miniscule current, though current is nevertheless available with the thermocouple sustained at constant temperature. So where is the energy coming from? Well reciprocation would suggest that attempting to draw current from a thermocouple would result in the sensor cooling, thereby drawing heat energy from the surrounding air in such circumstances (this eludes to the "Peltier" effect somewhat) - but only in the event of applied load to its output. Overlooking this possible event in deliberations could lead anyone into believing that energy was being created from nothing - the sort of thing that can catch an eager experimenter out after premature cries of "Eureka !!!"     

However, magnetic fields are a somewhat different matter - although inseparably related to the above. You can consider voltage, current, heat (etc), relating to energy where we observe such effects at macro level from what actually originates at micro (atomic) level. But here's the rub... Just what exactly is the "force" that yields attraction or repulsion forces upon sub-atomic particles? Can proponents of the CoE rules explain this in every detail so that this can be included in all deliberations to prove or disprove the possibility of over-unity in the conventional sense? This is not explained by conventional particle physics (other than the resulting effects of attraction and repulsion) - but the effects are inarguable and ever-present in all matter throughout the known universe, no matter how convenient it is to overlook it in conventional science.

Now could it be that it is actually possible to tap into the arguable perpetuity of sub-atomic moving masses (in other words, themselves a perpetually moving mass) and translating what is apparently limitless energy from a hitherto unknown source to the tangible domain? Until the very force itself that unites all atoms and molecules in the universe is understood at even the most basic fundamental level, then there exists a massive hole in our understanding of it.

As the invisible magnetic field exhibits attractive or repulsive effects with such force, then could the field itself exist as a moving mass in the same way that a tangible object may exert a force on another when in contact? For myself I believe this holds water as a theory, and constant particle motion would explain the polarised property of the magnetic field.

Could this be the key to "OU" experimentation with either permanent or electro-magnets, with the observations and tantalising questions that are raised from experimentation? Have "Free Energy" devices existed in the past or present, despite suggestions that they have not simply because current science suggests that this is impossible - or the efforts to debunk them? Should we be thinking in terms of "Conservation of Motion" instead of "Conservation of Energy"?

Hmmm... Perhaps   

I accept that I may require correction in my deliberations as I only possess a passive scientific interest, though I am totally convinced that even now it is not possible to argue that conventional energy cannot be yielded by conversion of unconventional universal sources that even today we do not understand. I believe that it is our understanding of CoE pers?, and essential equation variables, that may need some adjustment in the furtherance of time.


FunkyJive
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 02:18:23 AM by FunkyJive »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2008, 01:04:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2008, 01:31:55 AM »
Quote
OU is a matter of perspective.

The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".

When you realize that we have tunnel-vision in respect to electricity and magnetism (and pretty much everthing else) and that there is more to it than that which we see and measure, then the possiblilty of converting another form of energy into the form we want is pretty damn possible.

Hi Grumpy

I skipped to the end of this discussion to post my comments and a little above was your own - succinctly and elegantly put.

We clearly share EXACTLY the same lateral perspective  ;D


All the best,

FunkyJive

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2008, 02:20:00 AM »
I think Grumpy made a good point :)
Quote
The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".
And regardless of how energy is converted in a given space it contains the same amount of energy ---- But in conversion it will interact differently and have different qualities ie.. it may radiate energy or it may absorb energy in any form from its surroundings. This change in the properties of interaction define the type of interaction and scale of the "system" it may interact with.
I would agree with most all of you, but we have to define exactly what we are talking about and understand the scale of interaction with everthing else.

Shruggedatlas remark seems off-base though :)
Quote
The human body is also an amazing machine, but is similarly under unity.
Enclose a space a billion miles around one person and account for all the energy related to this one person irregardless of the form this energy may take and you would understand there can be only unity---- until some energy exceeds this one billion mile boundary in which case you just define a bigger box.



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2008, 02:20:00 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #37 on: January 24, 2008, 02:20:11 AM »
Hi Allcanadian.

Yes, I agree with Grumpy entirely, as no-doubt yourself - and very refreshing to see total alignment with my own views on this subject.

On the proposal of "Under-Unity", this would certainly violate all CoE laws as you suggest, as the rules clearly state that energy can niether be created or destroyed. I believe Shruggedatlas must have been eluding to inefficiency, although this only relates to actual output against desired output - with all inputs and outputs in total equilibrium nonetheless.


All the best,

FunkyJive

Offline NerzhDishual

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
    • FreeNRG.info
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2008, 02:44:38 AM »

Hi philosophers,

It is absolutely a question of semantics.  What you call the Aether, I call Stored Potential
Energy In the Universe.
You, of course, can dub it whatever you want...

Potential? So, lets suppose that you bring your young son to a psychologist. The practitioner said: according my IQ testing, your boy has a great intellectual *potential*.
What would you do?  Dismiss the diagnosis and let you son self-educating himself or help him by any mean you can imagine?  The OU researchers are doing the last.

So, if there is "something" *potentially stored* (ie: that could, sometimes and under some
unknown circonstances be activated/taped) instead of just a mere "void" ; "Overunity" (= Cop >1) is possible as this "something" could participate. Could it really not?

An heat pump as a *cop* >3. We know why. Some others devices (I'm thinking about over-efficient electrolysis) have also a cop >1 and it is still unexplained (http://freenrg.info/UTOPIATECH/PROCES_VERBAL_2.pdf). In French sorry, but
worth, IMHO, to be translated.

Best of all and sorry for my English.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2008, 02:44:38 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Esotericman

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #39 on: January 24, 2008, 04:36:38 AM »
Ok, it seems as though I'm being misconstrued again as being an opponent of free energy.  Although my definitions may not allow for such things per se, I am certainly a proponent of the cause!  My intent is merely to invite fellow OU researchers to adopt a more scientific approach.  I'll be the first to admit that our current scientific paradigm is somewhat limited and incomplete, but I don't see any use in disregarding it outright!  Build on science, don't tear it down.

In order to define something new, you must understand what is old, and then recognize the differences.

Offline Bessler007

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • Observations of a Crank
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2008, 06:04:45 AM »
The theoretical model I'm looking at changes from kinetic to potential to kinetic to potential causing an imbalance of power.  I didn't think conservation of energy would be violated but if this model works I think it will be creating energy in the imbalance.

At a minimum it will prove that gravity is more than a conservative force; that inspite of the loss to entropy and friction the path a mass takes as it's falling in a gravitational field can have more power than is necessary to reposition it back from where it came.


Bessler007
mib HQ

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2008, 06:04:45 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Localjoe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2008, 06:20:21 AM »
Whoever started this thread must need to sleep sometime :o ::) ;DMabey with some fishes sometime ... The glass is half full folks were all still alive and able to do work in a positive direction.

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2008, 09:36:45 PM »
Quote
My intent is merely to invite fellow OU researchers to adopt a more scientific approach.  I'll be the first to admit that our current scientific paradigm is somewhat limited and incomplete, but I don't see any use in disregarding it outright!  Build on science, don't tear it down.

In order to define something new, you must understand what is old, and then recognize the differences.

Hi Esotericman.

I understand and agree with your viewpoint - notably that OU researchers should adopt a more scientific approach. Equally, I would agree that neither traditional scientific thinking or the possibility of new scientific discovery should be discounted, though it would appear that the weight of opinion and certainties preserving traditional beliefs does little to discourage an equal and opposite reaction   :D

Nevertheless, we need balance and objectivity if we're ever going to move forward and avoid fueling even greater entrenchement of views, perhaps from some wayward OU experimenters claiming free energy when such claims can be easily disputed and discounted. Sceptics are an essential ingredient to new discovery, but only those that maintain balance and analytical objectivity.

My current views are such that science isn't necessarily wrong when you consider CoE in the conventional sense, though I believe that the formula is incomplete when there is a universal energy present in all matter that current science still struggles to explain with the same degree of credible evidence that they themselves would require as proof of over-unity. However, suggestible OU sceptics would deny acknowledgement of this, rejecting that something exists which they do not sufficiently well understand in order to draw their conclusions. I've seen and heard enough over some years to suggest that the facts do not always fit the science, so I try to remain open-minded but objective throughout.


Quote
The theoretical model I'm looking at changes from kinetic to potential to kinetic to potential causing an imbalance of power.  I didn't think conservation of energy would be violated but if this model works I think it will be creating energy in the imbalance.

Hi Bessler007

I can understand your thinking - particularly if the imbalance you refer to exists between the macro and micro models, with the two entities inter-related but evidently governed by dissimilar laws - i.e. the physical  and time  domains respectively  ;)


FunkyJive
« Last Edit: January 24, 2008, 10:46:09 PM by FunkyJive »

Offline gaby de wilde

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/Factuurexpress
The active suppression of free energy
« Reply #43 on: January 25, 2008, 06:35:47 PM »
Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....

That's nonsense.  You are like a priest chanting your dogma mantra.

Quote
I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.

Oh but you do need to prove why if you make such claims.

We are not taking your word for anything.

"Been taught why" is nonsense.

It has nothing to do with the real world. Specially when you make it a divine truth it becomes religious dogma rather then science.

So you got duped in skool now you tell me what I shouldn't care about?

Sounds more like oil minioning to me.

You desperately want people to ignore the free energy topic.

That's what it looks like.

Quote
Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.

It's either valid or it's not complete. As the later is extremely obvious the first has to be wrong.

You are still free to make your dogmatic claims evident of course.

Here we have a website full of people who have been waiting for this exact and accurate description of yours.

http://einsteinhoax.com/

And as you naysayers have never produced any evidence with this dogma you most certainly do not earn the benefit of the doubt. Physics assumes things. If you cant make the assumption evident at all that places it far far far away from an absolute truth.

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #44 on: January 26, 2008, 04:05:39 AM »
Quote
Quote
Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.


It's either valid or it's not complete. As the later is extremely obvious the first has to be wrong.


I'd have to agree with Gaby De Wilde, as it's the validity of conventional laws of physics that is brought into question if even the mere possibility of over-unity is to be entertained, and this a true objective scientist would continue to accept until adequately proven or disproven.

The suggestible "scientist" expects us all to blindly accept the laws that they themselves subscribe to, instantly rebuking all notions of over-unity possibly arising from the very essence (i.e. attractive and repulsive forces) that bonds and unites all matter in the known universe. For this there are parallels with the flat earth theory of ages past, where the earth was flat simply because "it had to be", despite no-one ever having actually seen  the end of the earth to draw such conclusions. It was easy to demonstrate - simply by pouring water on a near flat surface and comparing it to water poured over a ball, so to suggest that the world was round was utterly ludicrous as the seas would run away. Only by bravely challenging this widely-held "fact" and proving otherwise by Christopher Columbus' voyage of discovery was the rulebook re-written.

This of-course then led to the startling  discovery of something called gravity - a shift in thinking within the scientific community that could no longer be ignored. Once gravity's effects were realised then the motions of planets could be understood - but only by its influence  as gravity itself remains woefully misunderstood to this day. This in turn led on to the development of satellites to orbit the earth, a positive development that is reliant upon this mysterious gravitational force, and so still accepted as science fact that gravity is a real phenomenon.

However, the possibility  of a discovery and proper scientific demonstration of over-unity will once again challenge science, though even entertaining the mere possibility is again met with ridicule from the advocates of traditional theory simply because it does not align with their long-established beliefs. They would continually expect everyone to subscribe to laws constrained by their own horizons, with even the most bizarre contrasting theories and conjecture to prove  otherwise - again in support of their current limitations in knowledge and popular belief.

The proof once offered as to why the world was flat by the above example was not even remotely valid as there was a huge aspect (i.e. gravity), hitherto undiscovered, that was missing from the equation. By the same token, who could argue even the near-validity of modern science with such a universal absence in scientific understanding? It's simply that it fits the modern world as we understand it to be, and as with orbital satellites reliant on that mysterious gravitational force, why would we actually need  to understand such phenomena if we could simply exploit it to positive advantage?


FunkyJive

« Last Edit: January 26, 2008, 05:17:14 AM by FunkyJive »

 

OneLink