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.   

Esotericman,

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...

@z.monkey 
right on.

....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)

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,

FunkyJive.

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,

FunkyJive

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.

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.  What's more, they can certainly accommodate what we and all like-minded folks are trying to accomplish- the harnessing of free energy.  The problem with the laws of physics is not in the theory, but the application and the understanding.  Conventional scientists in short, have simply read too much into them; made too made assumptions.  Conversely, OU enthusiasts tend to abandon them altogether.  What is needed is a happy medium.

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:

There exists a rock, and a man (the system defined).  The man pushes the rock.  The rock moves.  It's movement follows precisely the laws of conservation of energy, and the total energy equation can be defined by a few basic measurements, and predicted exactly.  But... The rock is at the edge of a cliff.  When the rock strikes the ground it will exert far more energy than the man ever input- the energy equation doesn't balance, apparently violating known laws of physics!  OU folks go "whoa! looky! Must be FREE ENERGY!"  Well no, the system just needs to be expanded to include the potential energy stored by the rock.  Again, we can measure this.  But what if the rock is Uranium, and at the bottom of the cliff is another chunk?  Now when the rock hits the ground, the chunks mash together to form a critical mass that quickly fissions out of control!  Now that's a whole nother bunch of variables to add to the equation.  And 200 years ago, that would have been nothing short of magic, or God's wrath. 

Scientists tend to forget that sometimes there are variables in the system that they can't measure.  And there exists no box that can seal a system from all of these outside influences.

Now, OU buffs have to concede a bit too.

Overunity, or free energy, is all basically perpetual motion- whether it be the motion of magnets, electrons, wheels or whiffle balls.  Perpetual means never-ending - Infinite time.  And science says that's impossible, because it requires infinite energy to perpetuate it!  Which means, by its own defnition, that any machine or energy source which has a finite lifespan IS POSSIBLE.  And by simple logic, if some huge amount of work can be extracted over a huge amount of time, an even huger amount could be extracted over a shorter period.  A fission reactor illustrates the former; an atom bomb, the latter.  This is non-perpetual motion, almost-free energy, near-unity, possible.

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...

I partly disagree.
Electrical reactance of the extreme variety (namely, whenever current is inverted from voltage via non-digital techniques, such as the exclusive use of analog components (caps, coils, spark gaps, etc), alters time to such a degree that time is no longer a stable (non-variant) frame of reference. Hence, due to Noether's Theorem, conservation of energy no longer applies. And since when is reactance not enumerated with complex numbers involving the square root of a negative number? And where in physicality can this imaginary manmade construct be found?

What I study leads to interesting observations, that: this extreme variety of electrical reactance is: explosive, and local transmission lines can get in the way of this type of device (harnessing its inversion of current from itself while it can easily be powered by a mere micro volt similar to ambient levels in our environment at ground level). This "getting in the way" phenomenon occurred at least a few times: when C. Earl Ammann was arrested when he entered Washington, D.C., to deliver his EV to the Patent Office. This car had no batteries powering itself. I think I also read somewhere than some people claimed that the Moray device could do likewise if positioned near power lines.

Yet, I find this theft to be a nuisance since it can be avoided by taking precautions (shielding, etc).

Here's a simulated example.

I've been warned that my recent contribution to WikiBooks will be deleted since it is offensive to someone's sensibilities:

"This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

Backed up here.

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.  What's more, they can certainly accommodate what we and all like-minded folks are trying to accomplish- the harnessing of free energy.  The problem with the laws of physics is not in the theory, but the application and the understanding.  Conventional scientists in short, have simply read too much into them; made too made assumptions.  Conversely, OU enthusiasts tend to abandon them altogether.  What is needed is a happy medium.

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:

There exists a rock, and a man (the system defined).  The man pushes the rock.  The rock moves.  It's movement follows precisely the laws of conservation of energy, and the total energy equation can be defined by a few basic measurements, and predicted exactly.  But... The rock is at the edge of a cliff.  When the rock strikes the ground it will exert far more energy than the man ever input- the energy equation doesn't balance, apparently violating known laws of physics!  OU folks go "whoa! looky! Must be FREE ENERGY!"  Well no, the system just needs to be expanded to include the potential energy stored by the rock.  Again, we can measure this.  But what if the rock is Uranium, and at the bottom of the cliff is another chunk?  Now when the rock hits the ground, the chunks mash together to form a critical mass that quickly fissions out of control!  Now that's a whole nother bunch of variables to add to the equation.  And 200 years ago, that would have been nothing short of magic, or God's wrath. 

Scientists tend to forget that sometimes there are variables in the system that they can't measure.  And there exists no box that can seal a system from all of these outside influences.


Now, OU buffs have to concede a bit too.

Overunity, or free energy, is all basically perpetual motion- whether it be the motion of magnets, electrons, wheels or whiffle balls.  Perpetual means never-ending - Infinite time.  And science says that's impossible, because it requires infinite energy to perpetuate it!  Which means, by its own defnition, that any machine or energy source which has a finite lifespan IS POSSIBLE.  And by simple logic, if some huge amount of work can be extracted over a huge amount of time, an even huger amount could be extracted over a shorter period.  A fission reactor illustrates the former; an atom bomb, the latter.  This is non-perpetual motion, almost-free energy, near-unity, possible.

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...

Overunity is possible whenever the input of real power is severely restricted to allow the over-reactance of the valence electron volts of the materials of construction...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324978006_Low_Frequency_Oscillations_in_Indian_Grid

Hence, ...
Real Power Input cannot equal Reactive Power Output unless we induce a self-fulfilling condition in which we subscribe to the Conservation of Energy by suppressing the over-reactance of Foster's Reactance Theorem by feeding a circuit all of its energy requirements plus an additional extra input to cover its thermodynamic losses. This theorem, by Foster, allows for negative impedance resulting in the possibility - not probability - of a circuit becoming its own generator whenever starved for input.

There are other rules to follow, such as (but not limited to): disallowing a throughput for input voltage to discourage the formation of current and to force current to exit the same terminal through which it entered. This causes a reversal of current which, under passive sign convention, is the definition of a generator. The distinct difference, here, is that there is no significant prime mover authorizing this generative state within this type of circuit. So-called prime movers (in this specialized case) become (instead) catalysts incapable of being labeled as prime movers or voltage sources (etc) since their presence is merely intended to stimulate an over-reactance without supplying sufficient real power to convert into an equal amplitude of reactive power.

For a practical test of these ideas, please see my unabashed self-promotion of...

https://100wattlightbulbchallenge.quora.com/