DEBATE THREAD

[bw]

someone who doubts free energy should pull the plug on a sink or tub of water and observe the vortex, then study the vortex.  did you know you can buy a small vortex gun that will completely seperate all hot air from all cold air and discharge the hot air from one end and all the cold air from the other?  these are driven only with compressed air 80-120 psi.  you can buy one of these to play with for about $130. u.s.   also more than one company has a vortex that crushes rocks or grinds corn, or smashes anything dropped into it.  this machine is driven by a fairly small electric motor.  rocks come out as dust.  by the way, it is also overunity.
consider the possabilities and continue working.  everything wants to spin, every planet, wind current, bath water, cube magnet currents, tpu's, satelites, everything.  don't force it,  encourage the spin.  treat the spin like a child swinging, a gentle nudge at the proper time and direction, let natural forces do the real work for you.  if you can't figure it out don't knock the ones who are in that process.  many have good reason to delay this and i can't really blame them but for the good of the planet we have to share, this must continue.

bw

[hansvonlieven]

@ bw,

Good points you make.

Did you know that Helmholtz wrote a book called "?ber Wirbelbewegungen (1858)" (about vortex movement) which is the foundation of hydrodynamics and modern vortex theories. Unfortunately I have only found the German original, though translations must exist. I haven't found one yet as I don't know the English title.

Incidentally, Victor Schauberger's work is based on Helmholtz.

It is also of interest to note here that the same Helmholtz formulated CoE.

Hans von Lieven

[tak22]

@Hans

Hermann von Helmholtz’s paper “Ueber Integrale der hydrodynamischen Gleichungen, welche den Wirbelbewegungen entsprechen”, translated by P. G. Tait and published in English under the title “On Integrals of the Hydrodynamical Equations, which Express Vortex-motion” in Philosophical Magazine, vol. 33, pp.485-512 (1867).

tak

[hansvonlieven]

Thanks Tak,

Good info! 

Hans

[Omnibus]

Omni, you can attempt to change the subject to what people know or don't yet it's clear you don't have a proof the SMOT violates CoE.  You don't seem to know the difference between overunity and a violation of CoE.

It would be prudent for you to take an early retirement before your employer realizes just how incompetent you are.


Bessler007

. . .
Therefore, the really important achievement is to ensure conditions for overunity, not so much for obtaining of free energy. Producing energy from nothing (overunity) is the substantial goal in the endeavors under discussion here. Obtaining free energy (other than energy out of nothing), although quite tempting in a practical sense, is foreseeable and in many ways trivial since it concerns tapping into already existing energy sources.
. . .

Like I said, it would be prudent not to express opinions on matters such as violation of CoE you don't understand.

[Omnibus]

Omnibus,

Have you ever thought how idiotic your idea of "Energy from Nothing" really is?

Logic dictates that if you can extract something from a nothing it was not a nothing to begin with.. But then you were never logical, were you?

Hans von Lieven

With this you're only showing your limited understanding of what energy really is.

[utilitarian]

I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.  (Omnibus's generous use of passive voice in claiming violation of CoE "has been proven beyond all doubt" serves to add fuel to the fire.  It does almost beg for a raised hand up from the "remaining" doubters.)

(ducks in anticipation of rebuke about cluttering the thread with nonsense)

[Omnibus]

I have been trying to follow this, and I sort of see where Omnibus is going, but when I try to get my head around it, it starts to hurt.  Low-Q's explanations make more sense.  But I think I can sum this up:

1.  You will never convince Omnibus he is wrong.  Do not even try.  There is no mathematics or physics argument or physical demonstration that can disprove his theory to his satisfaction.

2.  Omnibus is correct when he says that technically, no physical demonstration of usable excess energy from a SMOT is necessary for him to be correct.

3.  Omnibus ignores the related corollary that while (2) is technically true, without a working demo of a SMOT that allows one to actually withdraw energy (instead of putting it in, via hand), it is impossible to convince anyone else of his point of view, given how revolutionary and counterintuitive it is.

4.  A demo of a SMOT that does not produce usable excess energy is not proof that there cannot be a SMOT that does produce usable excess energy.  The old adage about proving a negative applies here.

5.  Because it is currently impossible to draw energy from a self-sustaining SMOT, the debate will never end so long as Omnibus continues with his view.

(ducks in anticipation of rebuke about cluttering the thread with nonsense)

All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

[utilitarian]

All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.

[hansvonlieven]

Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

On another note, it should be well understood that violation of CoE is not about extracting of energy a someone here wants to present it, trying to invoke also logic, if you can believe it. Just the opposite, violation of CoE is exactly not about extracting energy but is about appearance of energy out of nothing, out of no source. SMOT is the easiest way to understand that. One can see there that a particular ,favorable superposition of two conservative fields makes it so that the forces of these fields can move a mass through a distance in such a way so that the net outcome is gain of energy (more energy out than in). The basis for understanding this is to make a distinction between force and energy, a distinction many here just don't realize exists.

A deeper understanding of what energy is goes beyond the usual definition of energy based only on the 'transformation' part of CoE, that is, beyond the definition that 'energy is the ability to do work'. That definition relies only on the previous availability of some finite quantity that would transform into another quantity--that's the 'transformation' part of CoE and it isn't violated, by SMOT including. A deeper understanding of what energy is includes the realization that energy is the very expression of motion and that motion is achieved through the action of force which isn't energy. Thus, when saying 'obtaining energy out of nothing' doesn't mean that there hasn't been force. On the contrary, especially due to the existence of force, more specifically, especially due to the existence of particular superposition of force fields one create motion whose expression is through energy, at that energy coming out of no source.

[Omnibus]

All this is untrue. Also, to join the choir of other incompetent amateurs here isn't something one can be proud of.

I am not proud, but come on, at least 2 and 4 you cannot argue with.

No, you're wrong on that too. Technical demonstration has been presented and usability isn't a criterion for whether or not CoE is violated.

[Omnibus]

Even if someone does build a self sustaining closed system SMOT this is still no proof that CoE has been violated. The most someone could say is that there is an energy input from an unknown source.

Until we know ALL forms of energy that exist in the universe no violation of CoE can be proven.

We are a long way from recognising and measuring all forms of energy that exist. There are still any number of things out there in this immensity that surrounds us that we have no knowledge of.

Hans von Lieven

No, if a device taps energy from an existing source that device isn't a perpetuum mobile. One may think it is but once the energy source is identified the device cannot be pronounced any more as perpetuum mobile. Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

[hansvonlieven]

Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

[Omnibus]

Violation of CoE, the basis for perpetuum mobile, requires no energy source whatsoever.

Do you ever listen to yourself?

Probably not, or you would not be uttering such complete nonsense.

Hans von Lieven

No, you're the one uttering complete nonsense by connecting violation CoE with a source which the device has to tap energy from. Hear it loud and clear, there mustn't be any existing energy source driving the device to claim that device is violating CoE. The energy driving the device must come out of no source. You are confused about the nature of violation of CoE and need to read more carefully and try to understand the references you cite (Helmholtz).