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

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)  (Read 52775 times)

#### Esotericman

• Newbie
• Posts: 18
##### Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« on: November 08, 2007, 12:16:24 AM »
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...

#### JackH

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 250
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #1 on: November 08, 2007, 02:24:21 AM »
Hello Esotericman,

Well you asked for it.   I think you are not as smart as you think you are.   The laws of physics have not been proven, by a lone ways.

I know that because I have a motor that is puting out 1-1/2 hp at 1300 rpm on just 90 watts.  Now I now you arent going to beleive me, but hoooooo cares.

I know of three self running motors just in Ohio.   I went to see them, and they totally self run, with out any input power.

Overunity is totally possable !!!

later,,,,,,JackH

#### Mr.Entropy

• Full Member
• Posts: 195
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #2 on: November 08, 2007, 03:53:30 AM »
Thank you, Esotericman for giving me the opportunity to pick a fight while waiting for more Stiffler news...

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....

Do you really think so?  What do you think energy is, then?  Do you have an answer that gives meaning to the assertion you make above, or are you just parroting something you've heard smart people say?

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

#### gaby de wilde

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 470
##### Re: Overunity is possible! (and why physics is a boob)
« Reply #3 on: November 08, 2007, 04:50:03 AM »
If the speed of light is not constant.

Then Einsteinian Physics is one heap of hogwash.

But with strong arguments like "I'm not getting into the discussion"

Or other typical Einsteinian approaches like: "you are stooopid"

Then you will be stuck with those lies for facts till the end of time.

It's the way things go with any religion.

#### Neoerg

• Newbie
• Posts: 5
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2007, 05:20:14 AM »
Physics makes a lot of assumptions... Some over-educated stuffed shirts will always say "impossible" until some uneducated fools come along like say, oh some bicycle mechanics from the hills and prove it possible.

#### z_p_e

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 651
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2007, 07:21:38 AM »
Go read some Bearden....classical electrodynamics laws are flawed...yes, a paradigm shift is needed indeed!

Evidently never heard of open and closed systems. Not thinking outside the box either I guess.

#### hansvonlieven

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2558
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2007, 07:30:56 AM »
Can someone please define exactly what unity is before we start talking about overunity.

Hans von Lieven

#### FreeEnergy

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2014
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2007, 09:58:52 AM »
lol

#### tinu

• Hero Member
• Posts: 630
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2007, 11:22:07 AM »
Hello Esotericman,

Well you asked for it.   I think you are not as smart as you think you are.   The laws of physics have not been proven, by a lone ways.

I know that because I have a motor that is puting out 1-1/2 hp at 1300 rpm on just 90 watts.  Now I now you arent going to beleive me, but hoooooo cares.

I know of three self running motors just in Ohio.   I went to see them, and they totally self run, with out any input power.

Overunity is totally possable !!!

later,,,,,,JackH

What?s the point of mentioning them without any proof or clear reference?!

Of course, no rationale person will ever believe.
For instance, I know a place where they give out to you money for nothing, all day long, regardless of the amount you ask for. But I?ll talk about it later.

Tinu

#### z_p_e

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 651
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2007, 01:58:15 PM »
Can someone please define exactly what unity is before we start talking about overunity.

Hans von Lieven

a unit = 1
overunity >1
however, overunity is not efficiency (n) >100%

But seriously, why are you asking? Surely you know this already, which is why I'm not going into detail.

If however, you are sincere about it, you might start here... http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3004.msg45126.html#msg45126
http://www.seaspower.com/walter.doc

#### NerzhDishual

• Hero Member
• Posts: 588
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2007, 03:32:11 PM »

For instance, I know a place where they give out to you money for nothing, all day long, regardless of the amount you ask for. But I?ll talk about it later.

I know a place where money it made out of thin air on a daily basis.
It is called a bank.

Quote
Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave with them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your slavery, let them continue to create deposits"
- Sir Joshua Stamp, President of the Bank of England in the 1920s.

Best

#### Moab

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 303
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2007, 03:37:49 PM »
here we go again. Go find a mirror. that machine you see standing there with your face on it is overunity in motion. next eat a snickers bar and do some labor like running. That snickers bar has been converted into far more energy than any other machine can convert it. doing far more work in less time than physics says is possible. Its like not seeing the trees because of the forest. not possible? really? Its funny to me the machine that is overunity cant understand that it is. Physics are mans invention, flawed and fallible. Nature is of supream design and has ben doing its own thing with its own set of laws and principals at work for billions of years. Who can you trust?

#### shruggedatlas

• Hero Member
• Posts: 549
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #12 on: November 08, 2007, 03:50:02 PM »
That snickers bar has been converted into far more energy than any other machine can convert it. doing far more work in less time than physics says is possible.

What are you talking about?  Physics says this is possible.  Have you not heard of e=mc^2?

Anyway, you guys should not pounce on the OP too much.  Until someone comes up with an OU device, he stands correct.

#### Esotericman

• Newbie
• Posts: 18
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #13 on: November 08, 2007, 03:58:48 PM »
Thank you everyone for your responses!  I knew the fastest way to get y'all talking was to appear to blatantly slander what you believe haha!

Let me clarify some things:
Unity refers to the efficiency of a system.  As we know, efficiency is defined as the ratio of output to input.  Unity, as Z said, is when the ratio =1 (100% efficient).  I have no trouble asserting this fact, any more than asserting 1+1=2; it is not a theory, it's an identity.
But keep in mind the system!  The reason motors are not (generally) 100% efficient is not due to any 'loss' of energy from the system- it doesn't just dissappear!  Energy just changes form.  A motor therefore gives up heat energy from the coils to the surrounding air, and from all bearing surfaces due to friction; gives up kinetic energy in the form of vibrations transferred to the surrounding air (ie. sound); gives up electromagnetic energy in the form of radiation; and generally some small amount is lost to galvanic corrosion at some point in the circuit; plus what ever other forms of parasitic loss I missed.  All the energy is accounted for, as long as you consider all the means by which it can exit the system.

The same is true for energy entering the system!  Check out this video for a great example of what I'm talking about http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBygG9oN9gY
At first our definition of the system is limited by what we see (or don't see)- and consists of a flywheel with magnets attached, sitting on a table.  With that definition, it is plain to see that this is overunity...
Until you expand the system to include the power source   Its like looking at the wheels of a car without considering the engine!
So Jack if you think your motor is running on an unknown energy source, then for God's sake you've got to rule out the known ones!

Alcohol looks just like water, but "miraculously" it burns!  You have to expand the system!  Uranium is just a rock until you consider all the energy that went into creating such an unstable element, the gravitational forces that made it clump up, and ultimately become a part of the earth.  Magnets are just rare metals, until you consider the intense electromagnetic field of the molten prehistoric earth that allowed the metals to combine!
We're trying to find energy sources that will last billions of years.  Why can't you accept the possibility that it has taken just as long to store it?!

Consider today's primary fuel source, fossil fuels.  They have been baking in the earth as long as 1200 million years (origin of photosynthetic plant life)!  Can you imagine the energy that went into that!?  We're just really bad at extracting it.  And that timeline is just a drop in the bucket when you consider the universe may be over 14 BILLION years old.  I mean- imagine how much energy went into CREATION!  to give you a low estimate, take Einstein's E=mC^2 and in place of m, insert <b>the total mass of the universe....</b>  Now, let's take it even further.  Protons, Neutrons, and electrons are the building blocks of elements, so their existence must predate atoms.  Imagine the energy in there!

*Now here's a wild concept for you.  A hydrogen atom, without an electron, is a Proton.

!!!

That means when you stick a 9V battery in water, you will produce Protons!  Granted, they're only around until they find an electron, but still!  Isn't that mind boggling!?  A subatomic particle... in a jar on your dining room table.  Now combine that with magnetism which is, basically, the bond that holds atoms together, and there is a ton of potential energy around!

Your Free Energy devices are somehow extracting some of this energy I'll buy that!  But that energy got there somehow.  If you accept that, and accept that it must therefore run out eventually, you accept that it is not perpetual, and now you're working within the realm of scientific possibilty.

A photocell is just a sheet of glass, until you point it at the sun.  Gas is just stinky water until you burn it.  Water is just refreshing, until....

#### Moab

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 303
##### Re: Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)
« Reply #14 on: November 08, 2007, 04:00:10 PM »
That snickers bar has been converted into far more energy than any other machine can convert it. doing far more work in less time than physics says is possible.

What are you talking about?  Physics says this is possible.  Have you not heard of e=mc^2?

Anyway, you guys should not pounce on the OP too much.  Until someone comes up with an OU device, he stands correct.

Show me!

E=MC^2 is an equasion not a machine.

I know the nay sayers are always far smarter than the engeneers who design and build it. This is expecially true where nature is the builder.  Stick a fork in me I'm done.