Warning: ob_start(): function '' not found or invalid function name in /www/htdocs/w00fbde5/overunity/Sources/PortaMx/PortaMxSEF.php on line 340

Notice: ob_start(): failed to create buffer in /www/htdocs/w00fbde5/overunity/Sources/PortaMx/PortaMxSEF.php on line 340
Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

New theories about free energy systems > Theory of overunity and free energy

Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

(1/12) > >>

Esotericman:
Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....
I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.  My intent is convince you why that's OK!

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

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

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

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

Now, OU buffs have to concede a bit too.

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

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

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

JackH:
Hello Esotericman,

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

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

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

Overunity is totally possable !!!

later,,,,,,JackH

Mr.Entropy:
Thank you, Esotericman for giving me the opportunity to pick a fight while waiting for more Stiffler news...

--- Quote from: 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....

--- End quote ---

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

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

gaby de wilde:
If the speed of light is not constant.

Then Einsteinian Physics is one heap of hogwash.

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

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

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

It's the way things go with any religion.

Neoerg:
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.