Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Esotericman 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...
-
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
-
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
-
If the speed of light is not constant.
Then Einsteinian Physics is one heap of hogwash.
We already knew in 1800
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Can someone please define exactly what unity is before we start talking about overunity.
Hans von Lieven
-
lol :D
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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
-
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? ::)
-
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.
-
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 (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 :P 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....
-
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.
-
Didn't define Ether...
-
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.
Fine, I will show you. For evidence of e=mc^2, you only need to look to nuclear power plants and weapons, which generate enormous amounts of energy from relatively tiny bits of mass. These are not considered over unity. The human body is also an amazing machine, but is similarly under unity.
-
Moab- a mirror is not a good example of a machine, since it doesn't actually do any work. Remember work is defined as the distance a thing moves times the force required to do it. In this case, zero force is required to reflect photons, so zero work is done.
But I think I see your reasoning, and it's exactly the sort of message I'm trying to convey! Let me try to rephrase it...
Light strikes my face and reflects off of it. Overall, that fact is useless. But it could be said that this light has the potential to be reflected back, into my eyes, where it would be useful in determining whether I have ketchup on my cheek. A mirror therefore merely "releases" this potential.
Same goes for the snickers bar. For simplicity though, let's use a tic-tac, since it's smaller. Even after you consider the harvesting of the cane sugar, refining process, construction of the factory, and all the energy man puts in to making a tic-tac, you are right- there is way more energy per tic-tac than man put into it. But that doesn't mean I'm an over-unity device! That extra energy is what was stored in the sugar molecule, which was formed by solar energy during the photosynthesis process in the Sugar Cane. In fact, the ultimate source of all the energy we use here on earth is the Sun.
As for equations- what's wrong with them?
Based on Einstein's estimate of E=mc^2, that single gram of candy has 90 Billion KiloJoules of energy locked up inside it- or the equivalent of 21.5 Kilotons of TNT. Is that enough for you? Now that's if you destroy the matter. In practice the energy release by the tic-tac into the human body is far less, but still.
Keep in mind I'm not trying to spoil your fun here, only get you to recognize that the goal to "free" energy is in releasing potential energy that's been stored for millenia, in new, more efficient ways.
-
In the case of motors that use electricity and/or permanent magnets, there is a measurement of motor torque output that can be mathematically converted into electrical units (Power) to measure a motor's output capability in terms of electrical power output equivalent. The input of electrical power can be compared to the calculated physical output torque of a motor converted into watts to determine "electrical efficiency" of a given motor.
If one were to have a design that can make very good use of the kinetic energy output from permanent magnets in a motor, then it may be possible to exceed 100% electrical efficiency, but it is not possible to have a motor torque output be more than 100% efficient. The 100% electrical efficiency barrier will not be achieved or broken unless the design of the motor is exceptionally good.
-
@Liberty
YES! Exactly! It is possible to exceed <i>electrical</i> unity. But just like you said, it would be due to something else pitching in energy, like magnets. That energy isn't free of course, it's just been stored in the magnet as potential energy.
Ultimately everything has a fuel source, which will eventually be used up. In the case of apparent OU devices, it just isn't clear yet what that source is.
-
Well i'll tell you what,
You are energy, your self that Multiply,
Positive energy goes up and negative energy downs down, okay?
and as a spirit being, since you are made of positive and negative energy, and as to what you worship as a very advanced PC spirit being,so if your angry at times then you worship negative energy and if you worship positive you will feel like your eating some sweets,when i say eating it is a pulsed beam that goes back in forth at roughly the interveal of 1.25 seconds.
Positive is life negative is not but is a twisted mimic,
when you say overunity is impossible to me and what ive seen, its like, what are you on about?
It does exist just do not mix it at all with science .
-
Just thought of something pretty wild. Since energy can change forms (kinetic, potential, inertial) Imagine converting inertial energy of some object (or device) directly into some other form, like kinetic. Suddenly you have a device sitting on a table which is far less obliged to remain at rest. Kinda makes levitation sound a little more plausible eh?
I dunno... just thought I'd share...
-
Greetings Everyone,
Perhaps those of you who are "naysayers" (for lack of a better term) are in the wrong forum. I'm new here but I believe that Stefan created this site with the intent to collaborate "like minds" and find a solution to our current energy problem and economic inequity. Why are we wasting time here arguing about things we can't know until we actually seek them out? (e.g. building various energy devices)
If you don't feel that "over-unity" or "free energy" is possible, why are you here? Your energy would probably be best spent somewhere else. Just my $.02. No offense intended.
Peace,
Will
-
@Liberty
YES! Exactly! It is possible to exceed <i>electrical</i> unity. But just like you said, it would be due to something else pitching in energy, like magnets. That energy isn't free of course, it's just been stored in the magnet as potential energy.
Ultimately everything has a fuel source, which will eventually be used up. In the case of apparent OU devices, it just isn't clear yet what that source is.
Agreed, but let's get back to practical intent here. If we can build a magnet motor/generator which can function as an "electrical over-unity" device and will last for even 50 years, it's well worth the effort IMO. We won't know until we "DO IT".
Peace,
Will
-
Whoa there Daniel! Hold the phone. Now we're getting our definitions all out of whack.
We're talking two different subjects here- apples and oranges completely.
Like um... what is dog plus sneeze? .... its just... not! There's no answer- dog and sneeze are simply not mathematical terms- they can't be added. They're not even similar concepts!
Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the Energy to which you refer has nothing to do with science, or physics, nor either does it have any bearing whatsoever on the physical world!
You are talking metaphysics here- the supernatural. Something akin to Chi?... Shakra maybe... that kind of 'energy.'
Our definition of Energy (and therefore Free Energy/ OverUnity) refers to a capacity to do work.
In other words, our use of the term "Energy" <b>is defined by physics and science,</b> so concept cannot exist outside that realm.
Does that make sense?
-
Greetings Everyone,
Perhaps those of you who are "naysayers" (for lack of a better term) are in the wrong forum. I'm new here but I believe that Stefan created this site with the intent to collaborate "like minds" and find a solution to our current energy problem and economic inequity. Why are we wasting time here arguing about things we can't know until we actually seek them out? (e.g. building various energy devices)
If you don't feel that "over-unity" or "free energy" is possible, why are you here? Your energy would probably be best spent somewhere else. Just my $.02. No offense intended.
Peace,
Will
mah, most people here are on a payroll to debunk free energy.
But if we rub it in every now and then they will pretend to do research which can always be exploited. So it's a win win situation. The debunkers get paid and we get to use their precious feedback. After placing it in it's context of course.
huhuhu ::)
-
@Liberty
YES! Exactly! It is possible to exceed <i>electrical</i> unity. But just like you said, it would be due to something else pitching in energy, like magnets. That energy isn't free of course, it's just been stored in the magnet as potential energy.
Ultimately everything has a fuel source, which will eventually be used up. In the case of apparent OU devices, it just isn't clear yet what that source is.
@Esotericman
I would agree that everything has a fuel source, however I believe that a magnet does not store energy. There are atomic particles that exhibit a magnetic force within the material. The magnetizing process only aligns the particles that are then "pinned" in place by the material of the magnet and does not store energy within the magnet. It appears to me that the atomic magnetic particles in a permanent magnet have the ability to maintain their magnetic output without man adding energy to them continually. When a magnet becomes 'demagnetized', it has lost it's particle alignment (magnetic particles are not able to hold particle alignment within the magnet) rather than being depleted like a battery charged up with energy. That is why I have come to the conclusion that a magnet motor is in essence, a form of an atomic powered motor.
Think about this: When you magnetize a magnet, is the same pole formed that was applied to the magnet material? I think you will find that the opposite pole is formed to conform to the flux path applied. In otherwords, magnetic alignment occurred, not energy storage.
-
I will have it my way.
I lift an object, now gravitational energy builds up.
You can by no means point out the location of this energy since it doesn't have any physical qualities.
You already make me laugh when you talk about this energy deity of yours? the big E !! ehm? ROFL?? It really doesn't exist in this dimension in the sense of the actually being of anything now does it? A religion? mkay?? Shall we start by looking at it as a religion without love? It has to be the worse one out there?
But if you want to argue E is stored some place else as~in "it really exists look here it is!" Then be my guest, but until you can show me a physical quality, until that day it just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist and it doesn't exist.
By the normal rule set people are free to practice religion as much as they desire to. But within science you are not entirely free to talk about unproven assumptions as if facts. In a religion it's perfectly cool to feel the god presence. In science it is NOT in medical science you will end up in prison.
You are to make things evident or thar shall not claim those are the facts. How many times do you want to hear it?
Lets say we have 1 hole.
Now we can only stuff ONE marble in there.
Non of the other marbles have any gravitational potential because the hole is now full.
You can talk rubbish all day. At the end of the day you still cant drop the second marble in the hole because it's full.
End of story I would think? but no? Stubborn we claim the hole can hold unlimited marbles as if total lunatics? Yes?
Lets run though this complicated explanation again.
When I take the ONE marble out of the hole they miraculously ALL HAVE POTENTIAL AGAIN. Hurray, gaby kills physics. Not even Newton survived this time. ha-ha
The Dutch guy put his finger in the Dyk and now the potential flood is gone.
ROFL, dude! The flood is potentially not going to happen at all.
It'zzz much like the potential just reversed there? (inside joke)
You cant win. I'm much to smart for all of you. ghehehehe But you are free to use up your energy if that's the way you feel about it. You know the ultimate thing to do in this religion is collective suicide. Things seem we are heading this way? no?
Energy in it self is preposterous but the conversation of it is all the more hilarious.
Now peeps are going to tell me this dety is everywhere and it's always preserved?
Dude?? OME ?? ? The stuff doesn't exist. What are you attributing silly properties to it. I cant stop laughing! iiiiiieeeewww Don't make me read your previous posts and guess what company you debunkers work for. You already know I will get it right. haha!! Being minion doesn't really qualify as work now does it? Cant you get a real job? This one is just ridiculous? no?
First I destroy the game of physics now the debunkers game. I'm having such fun.
Lets answer hans question also:
overunity is the name of the website. :D
Any more questions?
But honestly, I ask normal questions and I never found an answer to any of them. Why is there no~one on the Internet who can reasonably explain CoE? This is not just like a religion but it is one you understand?
There is nothing wrong with religion a lot of religions use to do science. It's where all our science comes from. Or should we say, was filtered by?
-
Think about this: When you magnetize a magnet, is the same pole formed that was applied to the magnet material? I think you will find that the opposite pole is formed to conform to the flux path applied. In otherwords, magnetic alignment occurred, not energy storage.
Yes, you are right that magnetic alignment is occurring, and yes this IS different from storing electrical energy (building up electrons). But this alignment allows the magnet to do work. Similarly, when work is done on the magnet, it loses its alignment. This has always proven true in every PMM. So a magnet has the capacity to do work, and eventually loses this capacity- I call that energy storage, in the same way that electrons in atomic orbit are.
But whether it lasts forever is meaningless really- if it lasts 1000 years... that's good enough! :)
@Gaby... I'm really not sure what you're talking about. I'm not sure anyone really does. But if you are insinuating that I am somehow "on the payroll" to debunk renewable energy, you are quite mistaken. The opposite is true in fact, which is why I spend every spare moment running calculations, making drawings, and debating the concept: cheap-as-free energy will save the world, and will save my life. 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?
-
Hi OU_Freaks and Builders!
From time to time, I see guys paying a visit to this very web site and solemnly pontificate us that we should more carefully consider The Holly & Eternal Laws of Physics, that there is no such thing like "Over Unity" and why it befits not worrying about it.
I do not intend to nitpick about semantic. Is it "Over Unity" or "COP >1" Does the environment (Aether for example) participate? IMHO, our Dear Dr Einstein with his "heap of hogwash" (Gaby) occluded the Aether...
I have checked it out: the domain name overunityisimpossible.com is free!
So...
Best
-
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...
-
>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.
-
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.
-
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..
::)
-
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:
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
-
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
-
I think Grumpy made a good point :)
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 :)
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.
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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
-
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. ???
-
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,
FunkyJive
-
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...
-
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. :) :) :)
-
@z.monkey
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)
-
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!
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
Esotericman,
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.
-
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.
-
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
Cheers.
-
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 (http://vinyasi.info/ne?startCircuit=overunity-breakthrough.txt).
I've been warned that my recent contribution to WikiBooks will be deleted (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist) since it is offensive to someone's sensibilities (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion#Free_Energy_does_not_Exist): "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 (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Vinyasi/sandbox).
-
Thanks for the challenge! and for the greater number of creator that disagree, well his guy might be right if you continue on the same path as you have. In order to propagate over-unity you need to change the way we think. Don't be mad. Thanks for sharing.
-
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 (https://is.gd/abstractrelativity) 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 (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 (https://is.gd/pptrelativity), 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/ (https://100wattlightbulbchallenge.quora.com/)
-
@ Vinyasi
While I may not fully understand the metodology you are presenting here,
I do think that it is very much so the right direction.
This as a result of my own experimentations involving interactions between
permanent magnets.
Thanks
-
Nothing is “impossible”
Overunity is not impossible, and even occurs in nature.
Every area of physics has exceptions to their general rulesets
Even thermodynamic theory.
Why do i call it a theory? Because it cannot be a law.
It is based on theories, each of which have exceptions.
Many of those exceptions can lead to situations where thermodynamic theory breaks down.
Organic molecules are overunity by nature, and by proxy so is all of life.
This is proven by caloric intake studies and the work performed by the organic assembly.
If you want to understand a few ways these exceptions can be made:
Begin by studying acoustics
Become familiar with energy in/out of acoustic sources
Then study resonant acoustics
and hold onto what you learn for this can be applied also to every area of phyiscs.
The first example (which we used in a college physics lab):
The Potato Cannon (standard demonstration tool for ballistics)
Energy in to pressurize a volume of air, energy calculations to predict the trajectory
experiment to confirm ballistic theory.
Except: when you use a resonant chamber to release the pressurized air
The potato flies exponentially further…..
-
I grew up on a farm. we had a hydraulic water ram. Once the pump was primed and activated, it ran continuously day and night.
No electricity or fuel to keep it running, no human input at all.
The world economy demands everyone fall in line and pay bills to a minority, and never look for an alternative that doesn't include them.
Overunity is a word people mistakenly use. Thats all
-
I grew up on a farm. we had a hydraulic water ram. Once the pump was primed and activated, it ran continuously day and night.
No electricity or fuel to keep it running, no human input at all.
The world economy demands everyone fall in line and pay bills to a minority, and never look for an alternative that doesn't include them.
Overunity is a word people mistakenly use. Thats all
Overunity is a word you have mistakenly used, just now.
A ram pump is not an Overunity device.
-
Overunity is a word you have mistakenly used, just now.
A ram pump is not an Overunity device.
In and of itself, no.
However many ram pump systems are currently in use that could be considered OU
Wherein: The system as a whole completes repetitive cycles with no additional energy input
Thereby extending the mileage of the fuel (initial priming energy) into infinity.
-
willy's partial quote "A ram pump is not an Overunity device."
To smoky2
In and of itself, no.
However many ram pump systems are currently in use that could be considered OU
Wherein: The system as a whole completes repetitive cycles with no additional energy input
Thereby extending the mileage of the fuel (initial priming energy) into infinity.
1. To be clear here in, this is what a "ram pump" is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_ram
2. As long as the up hill water supply lasts / rain fall upstream sufficiently re supplies the
water source, a ram pump may continue to function.
3. This may be free energy, but its not over unity because energy is expended,
(albeit by nature), to put the water up hill.
4. The very same is true of a common water wheel system.
EDIT / P.S.
To Smoky2
Did you bother to read the post by Vinyasi which I was responding to ?
It seems not.
Because both he and I, were / are in agreement that over unity interactions exixt.
EDIT / P.S. #2
primarily here @
https://overunity.com/3574/overunity-is-impossible-and-why-you-shouldnt-care/msg577971/#msg577971
and by extension here @
https://overunity.com/16983/why-over-unity-is-possible/msg577970/#msg577970
and here @
https://overunity.com/15140/overunity-does-not-exist/msg577969/#msg577969
-
Matter and energy is both local and nonlocal. Solar panel are overunity and so are wind turbines. However, these sources of energy are local and finite in scope.
I think the purpose of this FORUM is to identify source sof energy that can't be controlled by any instituted authority and methods of easily tapping into these sources of energy.
-
Energy being an attributes of matter in motion has a non local component that ties it with other sources of energy. There is a type of motion that is constant to all matter containing energy and these type of motion is the spiral motion. I have given you the secret of tapping nonlocally to all sources of energy in the cosmos.
-
I will post technical details of my free energy plan once it is ready but I think the free energy prize is low. A minimum of $250,000 is okay.
-
Matter and energy is both local and nonlocal. Solar panel are overunity and so are wind turbines. However, these sources of energy are local and finite in scope.
I think the purpose of this FORUM is to identify source sof energy that can't be controlled by any instituted authority and methods of easily tapping into these sources of energy.
We can have ' overunity concepts = work input/output C.O.P. ≥ 1 ,as static generator or rotational " ,but as You ,Nwakuche,write
45% conversion efficiency photo-thermo-voltaic panel and solar/photon-phonon concentrating film/foil we will reach ,by given public claim,
Solar radiation area ,below a solar Atlas : with 1500 KWh per sqm/year
https://globalsolaratlas.info/map (https://globalsolaratlas.info/map)
only photo-thermo-voltaic work result :
45% conversion efficiency 1500 KWh x 0,45 = 675 KWh electric gain per sqm/year
this dividing to spring-summer conversion gain 1/2 year period = 450 KWh electricity gain
and autum-winter conversion gain 1/2 year period = 225 KWh electricity gain
during autum-winter period applying the concentrating film/foil with Hyperstealth CPV factor 3x :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QZAax0-XA
225 KWh x 3 = 675 KWh total electricity conversion in this period
and we can reach ,actually theoretical - cause no mass production and comercial selling,
1/2 year without concentrator film 450 KWh + 1/2 year with concentrator film 675 KWh
radiation flux to electricity conversion result = per year 1125 KWh per sqm photo-thermo-voltaic panel size
~ 1125 KWh /365,25 days ~ 3 KWh electricity per day
sufficient for mostly private households global !
45% efficiency photon-thermo-conversion panels are public documented ,
as MEMS-TAR and tandem cell= double or more layer arrangement
CPV factor 3x ,compared CPV Mylar mirror foil factor 1,5 ,foil/film
https://www.google.com/search?q=hyperstealth+solar+film&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m (https://www.google.com/search?q=hyperstealth+solar+film&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-m)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QZAax0-XA (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QZAax0-XA)
Per year gain to daily average :
1 sqm solar plant ~ 3 KWh per day
2 sqm solar plant ~ 6 KWh per day
3,4,.... sqm
How cheap/easy this production to store ? Granit/water/molten salt -battery !? Flywheel ?
Can this,both : p-t-v converter and concentrator film ,becoming the 24/365 permanent working electricity conversion base principle ,by artificial lightning ? Probably !
With 24/365 permanent working artificial wind chamber with 1 KWh net output PER HOUR ?
24 KWh +3 KWh natural/24 KWh artificial ' solar' electricity generation per day :
27 KWh ( 24 + 3 ) ,up to 48 KWh ( 24 + 24 ) per day
27 KWh x 365 = 9855 KWh yearly result
48 KWh x 365 = 17520 KWh yearly result
not enough for 99% ,nearly 100%, private household daily electricity consumption demand !?
Global ?! What shows the e-provider monthly( per day) bill,in KWh ?
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html (https://yearbook.enerdata.net/electricity/electricity-domestic-consumption-data.html)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption) per capita !
Nearly 3 KWh or below, average electricity consumption per day examples,per household :
Intelligence Academy thinking ' real world' result,1975 :
https://www.habiter-autrement.org/12.energies/16_ener.htm (https://www.habiter-autrement.org/12.energies/16_ener.htm)
https://www.oeko-energie.de/ (https://www.oeko-energie.de/) intelligent household daily consumption !
https://mtbest.net/tips-for-your-home/ (https://mtbest.net/tips-for-your-home/) down- under 0,8 KWh electricity apply per day
Portable,location flexible changing,devices ! No expensive installation service !
On tect,on ground, sub-surface ( cave ),land/sea/air !
Working for over-consumption extinction !
E.U. program ,3rd step : 100% in situ generation = public net grid extinction ! Full autonomy !
Program evolution :
1rd step : nearly zero net-grid delivery
2nd step : net(-to) ( consumption/generation) zero ,consumption/generation balance result
All actually sold electric cars we can see alternatively as ' domestic electricity storage'- on 3/4 wheels !
wmbr
OCWL
p.s.: probably one thinks : 45% efficiency !? Probably standart 2045 or later !
http://www.redrok.com/main.htm (http://www.redrok.com/main.htm)
Actually 20% efficiency photo/n cells ( without thermic spectrum ) are comercial common ,
with ' best off ' 25% efficiency offer !
As solar output ,in DC ( photon-thermic cells output in AC ) the coupling with magnetic force amplifier gives a similar energetical result ,20 - 25% conversion output doubling,amplifier output 20% x C.O.P. 2 - 25% x C.O.P. 2 :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Keiichiro+Asaoka&CPC=&IC= (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=Keiichiro+Asaoka&CPC=&IC=)
Point 29.,30.,31
C.O.P. 2x : overrated ?
Reference : Kawai magnetic C.O.P. assembley ,Hitachi Lab confirmation
Flynn brothers magnetic actuator conversion actuator C.O.P.
https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003102164&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en (https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003102164&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en)
Even if the induction coil is satisfied, based on the results of long-term experiments to date, it is determined that the current limit for the output power ratio to the input power is about 1.8 to 4.8 times.
https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003079128&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en (https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003079128&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en)
In such a case, obtaining a high effective induction effect depends on the design conditions of the power generation device 6 of the present invention, but in practical tests, the input power / It has been confirmed that the output power ratio is about 1.4 to 2.6 times.
Taking the lower given ,both concepts, numbers : ( 1,4 + 1,8 ) /2 = 1,6 as nether C.O.P.
+ Factor 1,33 David Yurth generator coil coating ~ C.O.P. 2,13
But we take C.O.P. 2x ,as ex(s)pected minimum !
Yes,remarkable this claim,but not first experimental prototype function result target :
https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003009558&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en (https://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=JP&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=2003009558&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=ja&TRGLANG=en)
[ 0017 ]
' .......
Therefore, by designing a specific magnetic path based on the AC power source to be used, its frequency, and the desired output power,
it is possible to obtain an output power several to several tens of times higher than the input power,
and the present invention The device is small and easy to manufacture, so it can be realized at an extremely low cost.Also, when generating electricity, there is no danger of disturbing the environment such as the generation of vibrations, noise, or waste gas emissions, which makes it possible to save energy and power. This is a power generation method and power generation device that greatly contributes to the...."
Solar cell DC ( with/-out concentrating mirror film/foil ) to inverter AC to Asaoka static generator
So nobody needs to wait decades long for solution !
Em radiation converter + concentrating radiation foil/film + em force amplifier ,2023 standart
1500 KWh radiation area and 20% efficiency solar/photon cell and comercial available CPV Mylar foil and magnetic force amplifier energetic output calculation :
1500 KWh x 0,2 = 300 KWh
spring-summer 200 KWh output
autum-winter 100 KWh output x CPV Mylar foil/film apply amplifying factor 1,5 effect = 150 KWh
all seasons c-pv-modul output 350 KWh amplified by em static generator/magnetic force amplifier with C.O.P. 2x = 700 KWh per year and pv-modul sqm area ,
!
1,9 KWh per day
Because pv-modules are mostly sold in 1,8 sqm size ~ 1,9 KWh x 1,8 =
3,42 KWh average per day
Periodische Permanenz - Permanente Periodik !
Satis facere !?
If not,in autum and winter the wind flow movement is higher than in warm weather seasons,here as solution :
Ed(ward) Thorpe 'Concentrated Wind Turbine' with DC generator,coupling with inverter and Asaoka static generator
https://patents.justia.com/patent/8283799 (https://patents.justia.com/patent/8283799)
With improved 400W generator and coupled with Asaoka C.O.P. 2x device : 4000 - 5000 KWh ,per year e-gain
2000 KWh as cube law effect application ,taking his given numbers :
https://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9374 (https://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9374)
1,6-1,8 x the rotative generator average output improvement potential compared conventional type
+ 1,33 factor David Yurth generator coil coating option !
Keiichiro Asaoka his static generator concepts,compact/split,with SPECIFIC primary coil :
A. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/054832967/publication/WO2015189722A1?q=pn%3DWO2015189722A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/054832967/publication/WO2015189722A1?q=pn%3DWO2015189722A1)
B. https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100114&CC=WO&NR=2010003394A2&KC=A2# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=2&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20100114&CC=WO&NR=2010003394A2&KC=A2#)
Open End
And clearly,C.O.P. 2x in an electro-magnetic circuit is enough for permanent input source recharging and surplus electricity delivery ,vulgo ' closed cycle'-process