GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 497564
  • *Total Topics: 14727
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 11
  • *Guests: 31
  • *Total: 42

Author Topic: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.  (Read 80381 times)

Offline The Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #90 on: November 26, 2012, 07:40:52 PM »
There is no such thing as "free energy".
The only thing "free" would be that we don't pay money to use it.
Money has nothing to do with energy.

There is no overunity.
It is a nonsensical term created by those who want you to pay them for energy.

There are however, Unrecognized Sources of Energy (USE), and that is the point of this forum.

I contend two USEs are

1. The phenomenon of Resonance.
For example ... two similar tuning forks ring louder and longer than 1 when only 1 is struck.
or... an Acoustic Guitar is 1000 times louder than and Electric Guitar, same strings  same strum.

2. The phenomenon of Magnetic Permeability in Ferromagnetic Materials.
For example... a coil with an Iron core produces a Magnetic Field 5,000 times greater than just the coil for any given current. This is because the Iron has previously randomly oriented magnetic dipoles that line up with the magnetic field of the coil and ADD to the field of the coil.

Best Regards,
                     The Observer

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #91 on: November 26, 2012, 09:57:04 PM »
<snip>

However, the proverbial rock on the side of a mountain HAS no energy not inherent to its mass UNTIL it moves. That is not "potential" anything. That is a LACK of energy. Gravity is constantly performing work upon the rock and the mountain both, but until the rock starts to move it has no energy transferred to itself from gravity. Once the rock starts to move it gains energy from the acceleration placed upon it.


The rock is not the same as the "cocked spring" concept, as the spring itself contains energy when cocked and is constantly exerting measurable force. Otherwise the spring when "un-cocked" contains no energy in the same manner as the stationary rock.


Consider two identical tables. One has nothing upon it, the other has a thousand pounds of lead stacked on it. Which will collapse sooner? The lead itself is doing no work and has no energy, but gravity accelerating the lead and the table resisting the acceleration are and do. The lead is actually resisting a change in it's present motionlessness due to inertia (objects at rest tend to stay at rest).


If no kinetic energy is being exchanged in the system, then why would the table with lead structurally fail before the identical table with no lead?


It is not anyones fault here if you find yourself saying something to the effect of "What the.....(bleep)?"


These concepts may cause everyone to consider the issue a little deeper. Too see just how deep the problem with definitions actually is in physics, examine this link: Specifically the entries on Energy, and Energy (take 2).,


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm


See if you can find the errors, such as when he derides others for their misuse of the concept, then himself does exactly what he accuses them of. There are numerous logical flaws in these two entries.


Paul Andrulis

I can promise you that you're not the only one not thrilled with the definitions or explanations of "potential energy".  As I stated far above, I was racking my head on this one at age 12.

The fault for a clear picture is likely due to the sometimes vague interpretations of energy and force.  Our high school physics teachers messed with our little heads making examples of that boulder on the hillside where it seemed that boulder "stored" the energy involved in pushing it up there.  Then you push it a little further onto a plateau and it all goes to hell.   Perhaps it is demonstrating Newton's 3rd law in relation to "work".  Simply, the boulder will provide the same amount of energy on it's return path as was required to put it in a place of "potential".  That potential is of course related to it's mass.

It's truly an awful example once one starts to push that boulder on a level surface because in basic physics courses, one's mind tends to equate "potential energy" as "stored energy", so pushing the boulder 10' on a flat surface should mean that it has now stored that energy and it's potential wishes it to return...ack!  As you state, the boulder's "potential" energy is just that... the potential to produce the same degree of energy that would have been required to put in there.  "Stored"?  Not in this case.  A tree can grow on a mountain top over 100 years, fall, and roll down the hill without ever having energy applied to it to get it up that hill.  Is that free energy because it is "over unity"?  The plot thickens.  No, the tree has succumbed to the "Thrust" of a radiant energy and given a nice long slope will develop a mass and velocity that equates to energy far beyond anything the tree itself could have stored.  The pile of toothpicks and the demolished town far below are evidence of this.

The tree fell into a "stream" of energy.  In fact, not unlike an actual stream of water.  I'll call it a "River" instead since "stream" starts to get back into physics nomenclature.  The tree falls into the river and during it's path can produce enormous destructive force on it's path well beyond that of any force inherent to the tree itself.

Consider... even IF you pushed that tree all the way up that mountain, and even IF it stored that energy, or even IF the tree now had "potential", as soon as it falls into that river it has the force and energy not only of itself, but of the river (err...stream) that it is now engulfed in, and now is part of the "work" that river is doing.

Now consider this in the context of gravity, magnetic fields, non magnetically charged iron, and the one that always gets left out....TIME.

So why does this matter?  Well, let's look at the spring again.  It has been suggested that the force levitating the disc magnet in my display is "potential energy".   Another look and it is "stored energy", and with a third glance, it could be "radiant energy"  In fact, it might be all 3.

While we could go into countless experiments to prove any of those concepts, one thing does seem to resound...

... that people tend to settle in their heads on a vision of how it works and base their determinations on it.

Just like using the word "work", you end up with some confusion as to what the author is presenting, and that confusion is represented as logical counter arguments instead of agreements.

My examination as a young lad was that the levitation of the magnets was kinetic, had thrust due to repulsion, and was doing "work".

It helps to have an understanding that no mass is actually "solid" and that all matter is magnetic.   In my head, "thrust" exists between all atomic particles in the vast spaces between them.  "Chaos" is the natural state (else we end up with galactic-ally enormous balls of the elements in the periodic table), and the alignment of the particles in magnets is "anti-natural" and "anti-chaotic", which leads to unequalized "thrust" in the spaces between matter contained in that alignment.  I will go into this at a later date, but those are my theories.

Anyway...

Regards

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2012, 10:49:09 PM »
Oh... one more thing...

I am using the word (and concept) of "Thrust" in place of attraction and repulsion.

There is a reason for this.

Stack two bowling ball one on top of the other.   These two objects are exhibiting both attraction and repulsion at the same time.

I use the word "Thrust" to describe repulsion (or anti-repulsion) as repulsion and attraction outside of the matter's own atomic space.

Make sense?

:)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2012, 10:49:09 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2012, 03:15:02 AM »
Actually it makes quite a bit of sense. Thinking too deeply engenders scientific causality.... those who consider themselves the defenders of the faith tend to take notice and act.... just 'cause.  ::)


Here I was starting to wonder whether I was the only Quack out there!  ;D


Energy was the big one for me, due to the equivalency principle. Either the numerous energy formula are wrong, or energy usage is non-equivalent in meaning. Specifically E is supposedly not equivalent to E.


A quick example.


E=mc^2 (based upon and derived from various electromagnetic formula)


E=hf (An electromagnetic formula)


Does that mean then, considering that both are derived from the same electromagnetic conceptual source that it could be stated:


E^2 = mc^2  hf  or equivalently mc^2 = hf ?  :o ;D


This one tends to mess with heads. All sorts of logical flags are thrown.


You CAN'T do that! (Why?)
That is not right, one is kinetic mass energy! (Then why is it based off of electromagnetic formula? Explain why c is even in the equation please?)


I have had a ton of fun with this logical mess.


Technically, the arguments against fall flat and the concepts are equivalent and therefore formulaically transposable. What makes the concept dangerous to the status quo is that it logically assigns real mass to electromagnetism, which explains the supposedly "apparent" mass of the photon. This should not be a surprise, considering that Quantum Mechanics has already discovered that the smallest building blocks are discrete packets or quanta of electromagnetic energy. (Note: far too small to be photons. A photon is larger than an electron.)


Like you said, there is nothing solid in this electromagnetic universe. Apparent solidity is illusory.


Paul Andrulis





« Last Edit: November 27, 2012, 04:39:10 AM by pauldude000 »

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2012, 07:31:04 AM »

Here I was starting to wonder whether I was the only Quack out there!  ;D


Paul Andrulis

That's one of the nicest things anyone's said to me in years!

A few nights ago I was considering what some call "Faraday's Paradox" of why (at least in most experiments) that the field between two magnets does not rotate when the magnets rotate (mostly monopolar examples). 

The answer struck me... with no evidence, and that answer was what led me to sign on to this board.

The answer (for me) was "Magnetic fields don't actually exist".  I believe that there is likely enormous evidence to the contrary, but for some reason it feels right (even though it may be wrong).

The very short concept is that the alignment of the particles in the mass of our magnets doesn't create a field at all, but exposes to a larger degree a layer of space that is ever-present with or without the magnets.  This layer of space interacts with matter from our space in such a way that that the attributes of what we call a "magnetic field" are observed from our chairs.

I guess one could think of it as pulling open a set of curtains and looking outside.  Moving the curtains around changes what we perceive to see, and our exposure, but doesn't change what is actually going on out there.  The magnets are in our space.  The "Field" exists in another space (or simply IS another space).  While there are physical effects of our matter (including electrons) when interacting with that other space (Possibles: attraction, repulsion, charge changes, energy streams...etc), rotating the magnets in our space does not produce an effect "out there", and the "field" in our space is illusory.

While this may or may not be true, it would explain Faraday's paradox.

The bearing on this discussion is that now...for me... there is yet a whole other way to conceive what we call a "Magnetic Field".  In fact, I am having a hard time even calling it a magnetic field while my brain churns away at the "whys" and "what then's" of that concept.

One can imagine that defending that a "magnetic field" is kinetic takes a strange turn when one ponders that a "magnetic field" might not even exist, and that other factors might be responsible for the behaviors we currently associate with these objects.

We don't need to debate if the effects exist.  They do.  We can call it a "Magnetic Field", a "Dilution of mass", an "increased permeability of space fabric", or a "banana".  It doesn't matter.
... but how would it change one's views if we were looking at a "opening" to there instead of a "field" in front of us?

(sigh)
I'll have to get back to you on all of this

Regards

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2012, 07:31:04 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2012, 02:31:00 PM »
No stranger than the rest of reality I presume.


That is an interesting conceptualization. I shall necessarily ponder the matter for awhile.


A thought to make you go 'hmmmm' ehhh?  ???


Paul Andrulis

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2012, 06:10:07 PM »
No stranger than the rest of reality I presume.


That is an interesting conceptualization. I shall necessarily ponder the matter for awhile.


A thought to make you go 'hmmmm' ehhh?  ???


Paul Andrulis

It's definitely making me go "hmmm".

The problem is that when something is still in crayon in your head, you have to draw and explain it in crayon.  Examples in crayon don't lend to people taking them seriously :)

I definitely need a more elegant way of describing what I'm visualizing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2012, 06:10:07 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2012, 06:21:31 PM »
There is no such thing as "free energy".
The only thing "free" would be that we don't pay money to use it.
Money has nothing to do with energy.

There is no overunity.
It is a nonsensical term created by those who want you to pay them for energy.

There are however, Unrecognized Sources of Energy (USE), and that is the point of this forum.

I contend two USEs are

1. The phenomenon of Resonance.
For example ... two similar tuning forks ring louder and longer than 1 when only 1 is struck.
or... an Acoustic Guitar is 1000 times louder than and Electric Guitar, same strings  same strum.

2. The phenomenon of Magnetic Permeability in Ferromagnetic Materials.
For example... a coil with an Iron core produces a Magnetic Field 5,000 times greater than just the coil for any given current. This is because the Iron has previously randomly oriented magnetic dipoles that line up with the magnetic field of the coil and ADD to the field of the coil.

Best Regards,
                     The Observer

I am glad that there are some people in this world who understand the reality.(I hope that you had read my previous comment.).I am working on an idea to invent a gravity powered engine,which is NOT a perpetual Motion Machine.

You will be surprised to know that even after giving proof of working analogy of my engine,people on several science online forums laugh and ban me,because of their false authorisationship that Gravity engines are always Perpetual and cannot work.

Best regards,Aman.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2012, 06:15:16 AM »
It's definitely making me go "hmmm".

The problem is that when something is still in crayon in your head, you have to draw and explain it in crayon.  Examples in crayon don't lend to people taking them seriously :)

I definitely need a more elegant way of describing what I'm visualizing.


There is only so much with which an individual may expect to achieve with the written or spoken word. A concept is not words in our mind, but an envisioning which itself must be translated into descriptive words. Much is always lost in translation due to the lack of flexibility and applicability of the available words which may be utilized.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2012, 06:15:16 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline audiomaker

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2012, 01:02:24 PM »

There is only so much with which an individual may expect to achieve with the written or spoken word. A concept is not words in our mind, but an envisioning which itself must be translated into descriptive words. Much is always lost in translation due to the lack of flexibility and applicability of the available words which may be utilized.

That quote in itself is proof that some have a better set of crayons than others!  Nice :)

Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
It's truly an awful example once one starts to push that boulder on a level surface because in basic physics courses, one's mind tends to equate "potential energy" as "stored energy", so pushing the boulder 10' on a flat surface should mean that it has now stored that energy and it's potential wishes it to return...ack!  As you state, the boulder's "potential" energy is just that... the potential to produce the same degree of energy that would have been required to put in there.  "Stored"?  Not in this case.  A tree can grow on a mountain top over 100 years, fall, and roll down the hill without ever having energy applied to it to get it up that hill.  Is that free energy because it is "over unity"?  The plot thickens.  No, the tree has succumbed to the "Thrust" of a radiant energy and given a nice long slope will develop a mass and velocity that equates to energy far beyond anything the tree itself could have stored.  The pile of toothpicks and the demolished town far below are evidence of this.


Wow,what a point.Mindblowing.
Such things I tried to explain at different online Science forums.And idiots sitting there say that these things are wrong.

For example,in my engine concept, increasing potential energy at a height emerges itself due to overcommable resistance as allmost constant due to opposite Continous  reaction force.Now idiots at online science forums argue with me that Potential energy cannot be increased at a standstill particular position at a height and P.E. will stay constant.

That's right only when some body is using the energy gained.They can't understand that this isn't against physics.Graviy is Continous which means all objects at a particular distance (Fixed/hinged)get gravitational energy Continiously.My idea is to use that continuous gaining energy which otherwise could have nullified by opposite reaction from the intermaterial nuclear bonding.

Well,but psychology does not allow conventional people to accept such a simple concept because they simply only think that Potential energy remains constant.They only want to stick to laws written in physics and do not want to consider terms and conditions of that law.They are not intelluctual people.If well known textbooks says energy can be converted to mass and viceversa,they will simply accept it without questioning. Most important thing in life is "Question Everything" and this is what makes real discovery of mankind.These two simple words have created great minds like Einstein,Newton,etc.

These idiots have simply made a mess of "overunity" or "perpetual" just simply to fool people and make money for themselves.These selfish people do not want people to realise and use real freely available energy from nature.Or else such wrong belief about "Overunity" is just a virus running inside human's brain.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2012, 02:10:35 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2012, 02:41:50 PM »
Well going slightly Offtopic,one Quantum Physicist (scientist) has proposed that mass is just a mesh of intermating threads of energy (energy loops) (just like interlooped threads which make up cloths or fabrics) and this is what makes mass.This is the possible explanation for Einstein's law,
"E = mc^2 + neglected variable" which means mass and energy are interconvertable.
I am sure everybody might have laughed at Einstein when this law came first time known to the world,just because such a law was beyond Commonsense of a ordinary persion.
But new progress in discovery in science is proving that Einstein was very right.

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #102 on: November 30, 2012, 12:17:18 PM »
The neglected variable is y, which stands for 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))


This makes the equation E=MC^2/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) as the kinetic energy of a mass at relativistic velocities.


OR


E=MC^2/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) - MC^2 at any velocity. (Had to be done to work with classical physics)


That is why mass supposedly becomes infinite at C, since the Lorentzian transformation y places MC^2 in the untenable position of being divided by zero. IE MC^2/sqrt (1 - 1)


This is not TRUE, but hey. (Divide by zero = infinity is based upon philosophy.) Never stopped anyone before has it?  ::)
[size=78%] [/size]

Offline Aman Shah

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 43
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #103 on: November 30, 2012, 12:22:41 PM »
Thanks Paul.I am investigating the equation in more depth.I am a mechanical Enginiering student in final year.but I like fundamental physics as well as quantum physics very much,something which is limited in syllabus in my Enginiering course.

Offline onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
« Reply #104 on: December 01, 2012, 07:05:31 AM »
over-unity does exist, a nuclear explosion releases 30,000 times more energy  than what it took to make it happen. but this happens at the nuclear level to make it happen. it is a proof that it can happen.

 

OneLink