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 : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
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: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)  (Read 38358 times)

Offline whatisgod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2008, 09:31:45 PM »
Can a black hole be considered over unity? A finite source of gravitational energy derived from an exceedingly strong yet not finite source of gravitational energy.

Example= a super massive star collapses and compresses (more mater then possible?) into a single point. The gravity and overall potential energy of the newly formed black hole is greater then the star before it collapsed. If relativity is added into the equation and the plank scale and vacuum energy is connected into this as well you get overunity don?t you?

I despise being an "amateur" cosmologist.    ???

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2008, 11:26:29 PM »

Hi Whatisgod.

In my own limited cosmological understanding  ;) I don't believe that a black hole can in any way be considered something that represents "Over-Unity", as when a star collapses under its own gravitational field then its gravitational/potential energy merely becomes more concentrated  but does not increase by itself. Its actual mass  does not increase  - merely its mass density.

Only after a matter of time will particle matter entering the "event horizon" (AKA "point of no return") progressively contribute to the collective mass and thereby increase the gravitational/potential energy contained about the nucleus.

Fortunately there are not so many of them around (yet) so as to cause the universe to collapse uncontrollably inwards, though a few thousand-trillion years might do it   ;D

All the best,


Offline z.monkey

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1660
    • Scientilosopher's Domain
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2008, 12:23:24 PM »

When you post something with a title like "Overunity is impossible" on a site like this you are just looking for a fight, but you are right.  And no I am not on the "payroll" to debunk "free" energy.  "Free" implies free of cost, but in the case of FE/OU only the energy gain is free of cost, the whole endeavor is rather costly.  How much time have you spent doing experiments?  How much money have you spent gathering materials, building motors and designing circuit boards? How many prototypes have you destroyed in a rage when they don't do what you expect them to do?  How much stress and angst have you accumulated because of "free" energy?

I like to look at this whole mess of free energy and over unity in terms of efficiency.  A system with no resistive or frictional losses is 100% efficient (a very rare occurrence).  Free energy and over unity imply that a system can be more than 100% efficient.  You can be sure if a system is more that 100% efficient that it is gaining energy from an unknown source.  What we are all looking for is that unknown source of energy that causes a system to be inexplicably more than 100% efficient, if, indeed, that can happen.  Then once we identify the unknown source of energy then we will adjust our perceptions of the universe and realize that the system is operating at less that 100% efficiency in light of our new discovery.

Free energy and overunity have to conform to all the same laws that all the other normal energy devices conform to.  The difference being that there are sources of energy that are not completely understood by our limited intellect.  What if I said we could poke a hole in the ground and a gas would come up from the depths of the Earth.  We could use this gas to cook food, and warm our houses, and generate electricity.  Does this seem irrational?  Does this seem feasible?  Is this free energy?  No this is not "free" energy, it is natural gas, and it's pretty close to free.  But we have to pay someone to poke a hole in the ground.  We have to pay someone to lay pipes to our houses.  We have to pay someone to build a gas turbine electrical generator.  We have to pay someone to run electrical wires to our houses.  So, even though the resource may be close to free, we still have to pay for the service to get the energy to our houses.

OK, suppose someone finally figures out how to tap zero point energy.  "Free" energy from the electromagnetic null zone.  Do you suppose that this brilliant scientist who built this exotic technology to extract energy from the vacuum of space will give you his invention for free?  Suppose this scientist invested twenty years of his life working on this technology, the whole while living on a shoestring budget.  So how much money do you think that he would want to sell his zero point machine for?  I would suppose that this zero point machine will be rather expensive. 

I think the bottom line is we all are looking for new energy sources.  We need a source of energy which is perpetual, clean, and universally available.  Something like zero point energy would fit the need perfectly. That is why we do this.

Will the generator be free?  No.
Will the average guy still need a technician to install it in his house?  Yes.
Will the generator be a vulnerable, man made machine which will require service?  Yes.
Will the generator produce CO2, hydrocarbon emissions, or nuclear radiation?  No.
Will the generator violate the law of conservation of energy?  No.
Will the generator require a new understanding of conventional physics?  Yes.

So, Esotericman I can commiserate with you.  There is a general misunderstanding of the term "free" energy.  Everybody wants something for nothing.  Karma will ensure that we get only what we pay for.  Even if that payment is only 20 years of research.  But down the line a ways, I think we will be seeing some really cool technology that the average guy can use, for a fee...

Blessed Be Brother...

Offline mapsrg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2008, 08:49:48 AM »
I think physics has made some bad assumptions in the past like "manned flight is mathmatically impossilble," and continues to to deny the possibility of our imaginations.We basically learn that something cant be done so we dont try.Inventors try and try everything even the improbable.....if they didnt the airplane wouldnt be here....and they are not dissuaded by experts that say the opposite.I think overunity is possible...... and not being too scientific about things gives inventors an edge.Good topic. :) :) :)

Offline PYRODIN123321

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 253
    • Pyrodin's Information Anabranch
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2008, 10:28:47 PM »
right on. 8)

....guess once you discover overunity its not overunity anymore its an alternative energy source that you don't have a name for and is not explained by known physics..(stating the obvious i guess)

Offline captainpecan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 680
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #50 on: October 24, 2008, 10:22:51 AM »
I actually started a post real similar to this one myself before I found this one. I am truely amazed at the many different views of what OU/FE actually means. I've seen some very good views in this thread, and some really bad ones too.

First off. As long as you think overunity is the same thing as free energy, you will never get it. It's impossible to ever understand the truth, if you continue to assume the two terms mean the same thing, your making the exact same mistake as the physicists who continue to assume they know what they are talking about.

It's very simple, the laws of physics are sound. Most people just dont really have a clue what they really mean. The laws actually prove that a free energy device is in fact not only possible, they are everywhere, in different forms.

Overunity is impossible. I agree. But free energy is very possible. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." So it's obviouse, this law is correct. It not only means overunity is impossible, it also means underunity is also impossible. Everything is EXACTLY UNITY!

Free energy DOES NOT mean overunity. Free energy also does not have anything to do with financially free. Free energy simply means, AVAILABLE energy. That's it. It's very simple. A battery is a free energy device. Every bit of energy stored in that battery is free energy. Energy that is available for use. Run out of free energy, than there is no more energy available to use immediately, and you have a dead battery. Now the battery has potential energy. It can potentially hold more free energy!

It's not that complicated guys. Put a wheel in the water, hook it to a generator, and you have a free energy device. There was available energy, in the form of kinetic energy, that you convert to electrical energy! A hydroelectric generator is born!

Guys, stop trying to break the laws. Start understanding them instead. Use them to point you toward the available "free" energy, that you can convert to electrical energy. Very simply put, when you know what free energy is, it's a hell of a lot easier to harness and use. There is so much free energy all around you. Learn to CAUSE other forms of energy to enter the equation, and convert THAT to electrical energy.

Believe me, it is possible. I have done it, and I will release how I did it real soon. I'm working on protecting my invention first. Just study all the laws, finally understand them, stop trying to break them, use them to your advantage, stop trying to create energy, and start converting what's already here!

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #51 on: October 25, 2008, 03:15:16 PM »
PYRODIN123321 wrote:
....guess once you discover overunity its not overunity anymore its an alternative energy source that you don't have a name for and is not explained by known physics..(stating the obvious i guess)

I believe that this statement eludes to the truth, where if traditional science remains constrained by traditional beliefs, then a world of possibilities may be overlooked. I find it quite incredible that the most eminent scientists and mathematicians have worked together to build the Halon Collider at a cost of something like five-and-a-half billion dollars, in attempting to recreate conditions in support of the big-bang theory, yet traditional science cannot explain the mere fundamentals like gravity, light, magnetism (etc). I therefore believe that the "Big Bang" bit is something of a smokescreen, with other unstated motives and objectives behind the project.

I do subscribe to conservation of energy principles, though it is clearly necessary to consider all  potential sources of energy that might be realised from the "Ether", or "Vacuum Space". If you accept this possibility, as (for example) the very medium that transfers photon (light) energy and dictates the speed of light (just as the density of air or water dictate the speed of sound), then missing pieces to the puzzles start to fit.

Regarding "Free Energy", such a medium would doubtless convey all sorts of "wave" energy (such as electromagnetic solar waves developed from the spinning nucleus of the sun), but tapping it would require channelling it...

Consider a tornado, where the spin causes the surrounding air to get sucked in and directed upwards through its centre. Here the energy that induces rotation comes from unstable air and wind shear, inducing a twist in the rising column of air. Therefore, the wind energies that are absorbed by the tornado are focused upwards through the central column. The pressure differential between the centre of the tornado and the surrounding air could theoretically (if not practically) be tapped and converted to useable forms.

Now imagine a bizarre scenario where a tornado was operating and a huge hypothetical fan were placed alongside, directing air at the tornado. The fan would be sucking air from its surroundings and contributing to the forces about and contained within the centre of the tornado.

Without the tornado the air pressure from the fan would simply dissipate into the surrounding air, with the available energy generally reducing by the square of the distance. HOWEVER, as the tornado is absorbing the surrounding air and channelling it up through its central column, then I believe it is reasonable to expect that if one were capturing the energy focused in the central column then a significant increase would be observed due to additional channelling of the pre-pressurised air contributed by that hypothetical fan.

It is my belief that the apparent   over-unity mistakenly claimed by non-charlatans (assuming they exist  :) ), from experiments fundamentally based upon the back-EMF developed in electromagnetic coils, is probably analogous to the tornado example. I believe that whatever apparatus is used must first develop an essential spin in the EM field, so that absorption and focussing of energy will take place along the magnetic axis - allowing it to be tapped off in a more conventional manner.

Create a simple electromagnet, energise it, remove the current, and the back-EMF would simply be equivalent to the input energy minus losses (i.e. not  free energy). However, create an electromagnetic vortex  (a spinning field, much like that tornado) and then remove the energising current, and I believe that a significant increase in output (above the input energy) could well be realised from channeled energy conveyed in vacuum-space. From my own experiments investigating the feasibility of pure electromagnetic levitation and propulsion systems, I have distinctly observed such effects myself which could add weight to this theory.

This would not in any way contravene established conservation of energy laws, but would simply be an absorption and channelling of energy conveyed in vacuum-space so that it could be realised in the physical domain. Perhaps think of it in a loosely-similar way to electrical generators harnessing power from wave motion at sea.

Considering the Bedini/Bearden motor and possible electromagnet energy sources such as the sun and light, then might this explain the reported reduction in energy output in a darkened room, or at night?  ;)

All the best,

« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 03:39:01 PM by FunkyJive »


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #52 on: October 25, 2008, 03:48:29 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....
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.  My intent is convince you why that's OK!

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

More energy can never be extracted from a system than was input.  True statement.  But conventional thinking (and language) has twisted this into "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in."  See the difference?  The flawed definition of "system" in the second statement assumes only one source of input energy- MAN.  It is this assumption that makes it so easy for conventional thinkers to categorically oppose the notion of free energy.  To them I pose this example:

So then, I offer this piece of advice to readers- abandon the notion of free energy from the ether which will outlive the human race.  First of all, science says it's impossible.  Second, WHAT'S THE POINT if near-unity is just as good? 
A 99.99% efficient device that last 500 years would be just fine for us mortals, and fits just fine with conventional physical laws.  The trick is not necessarily in finding new sources of potential energy, new rocks on cliffs.  The key is to figure out easier ways of pushing them off...

This is not intended as dissuasion, just a minor paradigm shift...

First of all the laws of physics ARE NOT complete nor are the wholly valid. Not even close. Theya re missing one MAJOR piece of the puzzle and it belongs to people like Hal Putoff.

Secondly, the ZPE field is high in frequency. High frequency = high power locked away in cycles. This is old news.

People always get confused with the idea of getting more power out than you put in. If you resonate to the ZPE you will get OU results.  No matter what in any attempt or any construct which makes use of the ZPE field, you WILL get OU gain. Anything outside of the the ZPE and you 'might' get 99.999 efficiency or a unity of '1'.

When the Human Race realizes the vast potential in the ZPE, OU talk will be common and accepted worldwide as normal. If anyone thinks CERN's higg's boson attempt is great, the ZPE is greater in what it can do RIGHT NOW at this very moment.

The future of humankind is to make use of this energy field, regardless of those who wish to shoot themselves in the foot and persuade others into the school of deception. Isn't this website about 'overunity' or not?

Offline FunkyJive

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #53 on: October 25, 2008, 04:13:20 PM »
Gentlemen... We concur.

As for the scientist constrained by traditional beliefs, ignoring the most fundamental questions and explaining light in superficial "duality" terms, and forcefully repeating the doctrines of their peers and masters without further investigation on their part, then proponents of traditional science are perpetrating little more than a religious faith.

Fortunately we have a world of radicals, and probability would suggest that some will achieve success in promoting inventions and ideas founded on a more complete   science, though with a resulting independence from fossil fuels I can guarantee with absolute certainty that we're in for a long and dirty battle.

All the best,

« Last Edit: October 25, 2008, 04:54:08 PM by FunkyJive »

Offline atomicX

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #54 on: October 27, 2008, 01:58:37 AM »
What? payroll to debunk energy?  Where do I put application in for that?  I can create hundreds of theory for free energy and debunk it myself.  OVERUNITY! lol

I heard something about E=mc^2.  I'll take 1/2mc^2 for alittle cheaper.  I think that's enough for me.  Me no like nuclear.

I don't see you got anything hostile against the free energy.  You know what most professors scare of?  Godel's paradox.  However, for short stuffs like us, we're just base on what we see daily.  Anyway, Godel said no system of description will be complete.  So science is therefore, not complete.  You can't use physics class and what you learn in physics to prove itself.  If 1+1=2 , then there is no way in heaven 1+1=3.  You see?  People knows there is something wrong with the 1st law, so they just trying to find a new model that works.  That model has to describe both mainstream and new phenomena.  Then again, Godel said it still won't be complete.  This time it's ok because we just solved the energy crisis.   

And don't take things for granted.  I have an appointment with my professor next week to discuss the law of angular momentum conservation vs. Coriolis acceleration.  This going to be good. 

Offline seshamxy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2020, 05:55:59 AM »
Just a simple thing. You guys are forgetting the basic idea. Law of conservation of energy. Total energy in of an isolated system can never be more than total energy out in an isolated system. In case of over unity devices, as a friend referred one can obtain 1500 watt output from mere 90 watt input. this is a very good ratio of input to output in the field of over unity. here just electrical energy is getting amplified, not the total energy (as said in the Law of Energy Conservation) also, the abiders of O.U. is always sticking to the science they were taught in their educational institutions. Energy at input is > Energy at Output. i totally agree to the statement of Total Energy at Input > Total energy at Output, which is also what the Law of Energy Conservation states. So Physics supports this kind of machine, this is never Perpetual motion actually.

To understand how the Output becomes higher than input, first we need to know what is going on in this mechanism. The generating part, plucks out an electron from the Coil which is actually causing an ionization in the near surroundings, this ionization is nullified by the electrons in the surrounding atmosphere's atoms. Also every O.U. machine follows one common principle, they have momentum imbalance between input and output. Input motors have large momentum than output generators.

So why have not we seen any O.U. machines in public?

The answer is simple, if we use any such O.U. machine for our transportation, then how will government earn through Electricity grid and Petroleum Vehicles? Every nation is suppressing every such inventor regarding Over Unity devices.

Offline NdaClouDzzz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 305
Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #56 on: October 05, 2020, 04:53:34 PM »
So why have not we seen any O.U. machines in public?

The answer is dependent on your definition of OU.
At least one of the problems is that the terminology that we use in the free-energy-quest community is so ambiguous that those wishing to suppress such tech have no problem tearing apart those who claim such devices are possible and do exist.
For example: Would you consider a simple sailboat as an OU or free-energy device?  Take a small one person sailboat. It's in the water and all anyone has to do to sail around for free all day is to put a small amount of energy/power into hoisting the sail into the wind and giving small input adjustments to steer the craft. Here we have an example of more out than in. Anyone not believing so need only test it themselves by using GPS to track their sailing route and speed for that day of sailing and then on another day attempt to follow the same route and speed, only this time instead of being IN the boat, the sailor instead swims behind the boat pushing it for the same length of time at the same speed and same route. It's obvious that the sailor will have expended far more energy on the latter test than the former. Thus, this is a perfect every-day example of a free-energy or OU device being used in public. Yet, despite the free-energy or OU implications in what I have just described, there are those who can find many arguments to make contradicting my example as being free-energy or OU. For example, they can argue that the energy that was required to build the boat, put it in the water and hoist the sail etc., renders any energy that you collect with the sail as not being free because you PAID for that energy in the cost of the boat and in your continued energy input to raise the sail, etc. Thus, the energy you get out is not really free.
And the OU argument goes that the energy that YOU put in is separate from the wind energy/power that pushes the boat and therefore it is not OU.
I do not use these examples of counter argument because I agree with them, as I do NOT! They are merely examples of how our terminology helps to keep the public blind to the many examples of what we would refer to as OU examples in our everyday lives

Also every O.U. machine follows one common principle, they have momentum imbalance between input and output.
A little presumptuous ;D