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: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 05:34:13 AM

Title: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 05:34:13 AM
I am involved with several topics on this site and the question always seems to come up:  What is free energy? And: What is overunity?

I know we are all here looking for it but how can we find it if we can't agree on what it is?  To me, I think it is a given that energy can't be created or destroyed.  Having said that, I believe there are some "free energy" deices working right now.  My earth battery is but one, and I know of several others....depending on your definition of "free energy".

My earth batteries generate power with no input from me.  To me, this is "free energy".  The guy with the water wheel living by a river is getting "free energy" to him, and he can power whatever he wants from it.  Windmills, the same thing.
Also solar, etc.

So, my definition of these devices as "free energy" does not mean the power comes from nowhere.  We know where it comes from, and it fits all of the known laws of physics.  But, is this still "free energy"?  I believe it is.

Hans Von Lieven once said that if one were to touch a match to a puddle of crude oil leaking from the ground, it would ignite and produce heat and light, all for the effort of striking the match.  So, these could be seen as both "free energy" and "overunity" by some folks.  Of course it is burning hydrocarbons and this reaction is well known so the energy is not coming from nowhere, but, we do need to define our parameters if we are hoping to find new power sources.

So, my purpose of this topic is to help open a dialog on what the parameters are for that which we all are searching for.  what is "free energy" and what is "overunity?

Please feel free to post any and all ideas on this subject.  Without a clear definition that we all agree upon,  how will we know if we find it or not?  Thank you.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: poynt99 on December 14, 2008, 05:59:58 AM
I think it's an issue of confusing the term "free". In cases where the energy comes from natural sources that we can touch, feel smell etc. and are naturally replenished, such as solar, wind, geothermal etc. these should be correctly called "Renewable Energy", not free energy, even though we do not pay for that energy by way of money or physical effort. That's how they are "free".

I think we are all in agreement though that the majority people on this site are interested in obtaining energy from sources that we can not touch, feel, smell or otherwise conjure up from some common physical entity.

Therefore, for the scope of this discussion and for all intents and purposes, "Free Energy" and "Overunity" are synonymous.

Asking to go any further with discerning between the two will open up the same can of worms that has been open several times already in this forum I think. No one seems to be able to agree on the definitions, especially when others throw "efficiency" into the mix. Don't go there please!

So I guess for me its all a non-issue, but surely many will not see it this way.

.99
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 06:18:47 AM
poynt99:

Thanks for posting.  Yes, it is certainly a can of worms.  I can't tell you how many topics this comes up in, again and again.  But, this is exactly my point.  If I develop a device that does "X", and then claim FE or OU, folks would come out of the woodwork and say things like, that is not FE, you had to pay for the transistor, etc.

All I am asking for here, and I know it is not a small task, is to agree or almost agree on a set of parameters to define that which we are all searching for.  I understand your point, trust me I do.  I have seen so many interpretations and opinions on what is this and what is not that, as have many folks.  I just thought it would be nice to have a clear, defined "bar" if you will, that if one jumps over, then he has it.  If not, then he does not.

I guess what i am trying to do here, and probably rather poorly, is to establish a finish line.  If indeed this is a race, and I believe it is, how do we know if we won, or even completed the race if we don't know where the finish line is, or what it looks like, or can't even describe it so everyone agrees?

I did not start this topic to open the proverbial can of worms.  Maybe I have done so anyway.

I just want to know some answers like:  Is my earth battery OU?  FE?  If so...why?  If not, why not?

I have the feeling that I might regret bringing this up.


Bill

***Edit***  Ok I have another thought.  Your term "renewable" might work for some things and maybe most.  It is a good term.  Ethanol made from corn that once burned, can be renewed.  I agree 100%.  But, back to the earth battery. (for example)  I don't have to "renew" anything.  The power keeps coming and coming with no further requirement on my part.  Nothing is "used up".  It is not energy from nowhere as we think we know how/why it works.  So, I am not sure renewable applies in all cases and maybe this one specifically.

Please notice that I left out "perpetual motion" in this topic.  That is yet another "can of worms".  I once had an argument with a physics professor about this subject.  He said PM is impossible and can never happen.  I said, ok but what about the atoms there in your desk, and the electrons that are orbiting.  He said...ummm...well.....that is still not PM.  I asked...why not?  He never gave me an answer.  So, to be clear, I am not talking about creating energy out of nowhere, but tapping into both known, and unknown energy systems, which would not violate known physics laws.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: poynt99 on December 14, 2008, 07:00:58 AM
Bill,

As I alluded to above, the first thing all have to agree on is the separation of "Renewable Energy"systems, from "extra" energy by other means.

I strongly suggest keeping renewable energy systems out of the discussion, because this is known and proven technology, and it comes from sources that are tangible. So the answer to your question about your earth battery; can you put your finger on the source of extra energy? If so, then that is energy from known physical processes, and in this case comes directly from the earth. I don't know much about the earth battery, but do I assume correctly that it also renews itself?

I believe the other issue you are asking about, having now separated renewable energy systems from overunity/free energy systems, is how does one know when or if they've achieved "it"?

In my own mind this is fairly clear, but having observed and taken part in this forum for quite some time, I'd have to say it's not so obvious for many. There are a lot of good experimenters here, some with extraordinary skills, but by and large, it is a learning process through which eyes are opened and lessons are learned with a few "false alarms" along the way.

A protocol for if (the big one), when, and how to post OU claims would be fairly straightforward (not necessarily easy or quick) to produce, but unless asked to do so, I would not volunteer my time because I have seen good documents such as this would be, go largely unheeded by most even though obvious effort went into it.

.99
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 07:04:33 AM
poynt99:

Thanks for posting.  Yes, it is certainly a can of worms.  I can't tell you how many topics this comes up in, again and again.  But, this is exactly my point.  If I develop a device that does "X", and then claim FE or OU, folks would come out of the woodwork and say things like, that is not FE, you had to pay for the transistor, etc.

All I am asking for here, and I know it is not a small task, is to agree or almost agree on a set of parameters to define that which we are all searching for.  I understand your point, trust me I do.  I have seen so many interpretations and opinions on what is this and what is not that, as have many folks.  I just thought it would be nice to have a clear, defined "bar" if you will, that if one jumps over, then he has it.  If not, then he does not.

I guess what i am trying to do here, and probably rather poorly, is to establish a finish line.  If indeed this is a race, and I believe it is, how do we know if we won, or even completed the race if we don't know where the finish line is, or what it looks like, or can't even describe it so everyone agrees?

I did not start this topic to open the proverbial can of worms.  Maybe I have done so anyway.

I just want to know some answers like:  Is my earth battery OU?  FE?  If so...why?  If not, why not?

I have the feeling that I might regret bringing this up.


Bill

***Edit***  Ok I have another thought.  Your term "renewable" might work for some things and maybe most.  It is a good term.  Ethanol made from corn that once burned, can be renewed.  I agree 100%.  But, back to the earth battery. (for example)  I don't have to "renew" anything.  The power keeps coming and coming with no further requirement on my part.  Nothing is "used up".  It is not energy from nowhere as we think we know how/why it works.  So, I am not sure renewable applies in all cases and maybe this one specifically.

Please notice that I left out "perpetual motion" in this topic.  That is yet another "can of worms".  I once had an argument with a physics professor about this subject.  He said PM is impossible and can never happen.  I said, ok but what about the atoms there in your desk, and the electrons that are orbiting.  He said...ummm...well.....that is still not PM.  I asked...why not?  He never gave me an answer.  So, to be clear, I am not talking about creating energy out of nowhere, but tapping into both known, and unknown energy systems, which would not violate known physics laws.

@ poynt99:

I quoted my previous post because I added an edited part (addition) that I think addresses the renewable point you were making.  Again, I agree, renewable is off the table.  What do you think of my earth battery example as quoted here?

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: poynt99 on December 14, 2008, 07:13:26 AM
Actually, "renewable" is a bad term IMHO.

That's actually what it DOES mean Bill  :D

Renewable Energy sources are those that renew themselves without human intervention, so by definition, your earth battery and every other natural source of energy, is "renewable".

Renewable Energy sources include:
- Solar
- Wind
- Geothermal
- Water (ocean waves, river flow etc.)
- Biomass (wood, ethanol, etc.)

- Telluric Current/Earth Batteries perhaps belong in their own class of renewable energy?

.99
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 07:31:15 AM
@ poynt99:

I agree with your term for all except the last one you listed.  Ethanol, made from corn, or whatever, is made...then used...and the corn has to be grown again.  So, there is human intervention.  But, as for the rest, yes, I agree.

Maybe, just maybe, the earth battery is renewable also in that, we "drain" it, and the earth "renews" (charges) it again?  That is exactly why I made this topic.  Not to argue semantics, but to define what it is we are after.  Please, I am not saying you are arguing semantics, but I know this will come up if/when others respond to my posts.

I really appreciate your responding to my topic.  I have seen your other posts on many other topics and I do value your opinion.  I am here to try to learn and possibly, help others and maybe contribute in any way that I can.  when I take a step back from all that is taking place here, I see a need to define our goals.  If others do not agree, then maybe they are correct and I am wrong.  (It has happened before)  If/when I ever "get it", I guess I would just like to know if my "it" is the same as most folk's "it".  Thanks again for taking the time to post here.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 09:27:48 AM
This is a very interesting topic to me. I have previously gotten into some interesting discussions regarding this issue.  The problem is, most people try and complicate the hell out of it, when I believe, it is in fact very simple.  At least the way I see it anyway... wright or wrong...

The first problem is that most people actually think that Free Energy is exactly the same thing as Over Unity.  In my opinion, they are extremely different.  One is impossible, and the other is everywhere!  Let me explain...

Over Unity is impossible, and laws of physics prove this in many ways.  But before you get upset, realize this...  Under Unity is also impossible!  Everything is EXACTLY UNITY!  Energy cant be created or destroyed, only converted to other forms of energy.  For instance, an electric motor loses energy to heat from resistance and to other factors.  But if you add up the electrical energy sent to it, then you add up the heat energy lost, plus the kinetic energy gained from the rotation, and all other forms of energy entering and leaving the equation... You end up with exactly what you had when you started.   If energy was described as a molecule, and you added up every molecule of energy in the universe, since it can't be created or destroyed, then there is exactly the same amount energy in the universe today as there was 500 years ago.  That being true, this also means that every single device ever invented actually runs at perfectly UNITY.  But this also means that every bit of energy ever used, was free......

Free Energy is what we are all searching for.  And when you study what the laws of physics tell us, they also prove that Free Energy is everywhere.  Think of it this way...  Free energy actually means... AVAILABLE Energy.  How much it financially costs us is irrelevant.  A battery is actually a free energy device.  Charge it up, now you have "available" energy to use... Just like a hydroelectric generator, there is plenty of free "available" energy in the form of kinetic energy in the flow of water.  A hydroelectric generator simply converts the available kinetic energy into mechanical and electrical energy we can use.  If you add up all the sources of energy together, it's still exactly unity.  But to us, we made use of the free energy that was there, and we converted it so we could run our lights!

Free Energy is everywhere.  Converting it efficiently is the problem to be solved.  Honestly, a simple pendulum is a free energy device.  Think about it, all the energy that is put into it is lifting it from the bottom steady state in the middle position to a higher position.  Doing this, we must overcome the inertia of the pendulum wanting to stay still, and overcome gravity by lifting it up.  Now what happens when you let it go...  You get the gravitational energy back when it swings back to it's starting position again, but now the gravitational energy and the inertia wanting to keep it moving, forces it past it's starting position and on it's way back up the other side.  This is where the free energy enters the equation.  Newtons law says "every action has an equal and opposite reaction".  Guess what, nature see's the pendulum moving past where it started and gravity enters the equation to force it back to the start and fighting to overcome the inertia.  Now what you end up with is gravity and inertia fighting back and forth working against each other trying to stop the pendulum from moving as it keeps moving past the starting point until everything eventually balances out and it comes to rest.  When you really think about it, there is energy being converted back and forth like crazy in something as simple as a pendulum, with only one little lift to start it.

Just my take on it...  But for those who believe free energy only means energy you never paid any money for...  I've got a very simple way to get all the free energy you want...  Get someone else to pay your electric bill, and never pay them back!  There's your free energy device that fits the definition exactly...

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 09:55:51 AM
When you view free energy like I view it, idea's start popping up like crazy...  I've got about a thousand of them, most of them are not practical at all, hence the very nature of the problem.

Like this one...  There is a lot of free energy in something as simple as air bubbles... lol 
Think of this. How much electrical energy does it take to make air bubbles, hardly any at all.  But no matter what you do with an air bubble in water, it will fight to get to the surface.  So theoretically, you could pump some air bubbles in the bottom of a tank, let the air bubbles push small wheels on their way to the surface. Just like those nifty little things in your fish tank that move when air bubbles build up under them... Those small wheels "turbines" will generate some electrical energy to keep the battery charged you are running your air pump with.  Not enough electrical energy being generated to keep it running...  make the water tank taller, and "conserve that energy" as you keep reusing the energy from the air bubbles as they keep fighting through all the turbines on the way to the top.  A mile high tank of water, would get one little air bubble helping to push hundreds or thousands of turbines on it's way to the surface.  How much energy did it take to make that one air bubble?  Dont want to waste the air bubbles, instead of running a pump, split the water with the energy the bubbles make.  Now your bubbles are HHO and can be used even further!  hmmm... or maybe even just capping it off at the top, and feeding the air back to the bottom through a hose.  After everything finally balances out pressures, every bubble that hit's the surface would release one in the bottom of the tank.  Then it would not even need to be powered by electricity at all....

Practical.... nope... stupid, maybe, maybe not...  interesting... yup... lol
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: spinner on December 14, 2008, 10:20:38 AM
"Free Energy" and "OverUnity"... FE & OU

For both terms one can find as many definitions as he wants... Both descriptions can be found in classical physics, but it frequently differs from the various interest groups (like this forum) common understandings...

FE? I'd say it is any recognisable (or maybe not?) energy source which is used by us, people, in an "unconventional / not commonly used" ways..

E.g. Earth batteries, "environmental charge" electricity, local fluid pressure potential differency ... Tapping the kinetic energy of a stream of water, coming from a tap while filling your pool or bath tub... Using the heat of your car exhausts for powering Peltier's, etc... Using a rain fall kinetics... etc, etc ... This "FE" is there since ever, but are we using it??? Why not?

Renewable energy (Poynt's point) is usually the prime energy source... Which means that this FE is still "CoE defined"... It's rather small in the magnitude of the effect (otherwise it would be widely used), and the project (!) never is absolutely "free of cost"... Even though the energy source itself is "for free"...

Check out the main energy sources used today... Renewables are still the small part of our energy pie. Even though they're a "Free Energy"...


OU?
There is actually NOT EVEN ONE DEVICE, which could be declared as "OverUnity"... (there are many claims, but ...If ones know any of such device, please, point me to it...)

This is the thoroughly researched area of a classical physics / thermodynamics.. Considering a very strict rules (definitions of a closed system), so far not even one device produced more "output" than "input"....

Which would be equal to producing power/energy out of nothing.
Which would made Perpetual motion a piece of cake.
Which is (to date) never achieved, and is considered "impossible"!... But ... Is it, really?  ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 11:15:24 AM
OU?
There is actually NOT EVEN ONE DEVICE, which could be declared as "OverUnity"... (there are many claims, but ...If ones know any of such device, please, point me to it...)

Oh.... Oh...  I think I know this one....   ummmm...  I forgot...  ;)

Quote
Which would made Perpetual motion a piece of cake.
Which is (to date) never achieved, and is considered "impossible"!... But ... Is it, really?  ;)
The only Perpetual Motion I'm aware of is that of an electron.  Or atomic perpetual motion. But then you can get into quantum physics and stuff gets really weird in a hurry...
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: spinner on December 14, 2008, 11:39:11 AM
Oh.... Oh...  I think I know this one....   ummmm...  I forgot...  ;)
The only Perpetual Motion I'm aware of is that of an electron.  Or atomic perpetual motion. But then you can get into quantum physics and stuff gets really weird in a hurry...

Quantum physics? Atomical perpetual motion?
You're wright... No matter what is known or what current physics is trying to teach you, there's actually a lot of unknowns, mysteries... No doubt about that...

You can have your own theory about the many things, like atom construction, workings , energy origins - and nobody can really tell you you're 100% wrong... They can't prove it for sure !!!

That's the point...And that's the reason I am here, too...

Cheers!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: lltfdaniel1 on December 14, 2008, 12:26:07 PM
Lets keep this simple.

Overunity as i believe it, is recycled energy.

Nature is overunity where clouds give rain and then goes back up and then goes back down and then goes back up.

What i can't understand and what is not is clear enough is how this gives more energy out, this is the major factor, but i really do believe it exists.

anyways go to this link below and read all of it.

http://100777.com/spiritual/beings_having_a_physical_experience







Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: khabe on December 14, 2008, 02:47:15 PM
The bird,
Bird flies 7,000 miles—non-stop http://msnbc-1005096.polls.newsvine.com/_video/2008/10/22/2029525-bird-flies-7000-milesnon-stop
Weight ... what she eats and how much spent for eating ... and she flies ...
Is it Overunity ??? For me - yes - when to compare with the best of man-made "high-efficient machines"  :'(
Im  sure if we measure and calculate full efficient of Bird  adequate we do with the best man-made higj efficient machines -  then Bird is real Overunity.
How far can fly man-made the same weight micro spy airplane?  perhaps 70 miles (in reality 7) .But it has at least 98% efficient motor and the best known and secret batteries :o
Does the rest of 2% give 100....1000 times better result ??? Of course not.
Something goes wrongly with formulas ...
Mother Nature just makes it better ::)
Almighty God makes all the best.
with due respect,
khabe
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 08:48:10 PM
@ Captainpecan:

Thanks for posting.  Yes, I agree with your unity assessment.  Mother nature likes balance, equilibrium and unity.  I also agree with those that say energy from nothing is impossible.  But, having a device that uses energy from somewhere heretofore unused would still obey all of the laws of physics and probably qualify as "free energy" according to my personal definition.  Maybe "free energy" is a bad term in and of itself.  As we all know, nothing is free.  Someone once suggested the term "free to me energy" which is ok except in some cases, like plugging into the neighbor's power line or accessing the electric company's line before the meter, would be considered stealing.  Sure, anything one steals is free to them.

There have been some guys working with antennas on here and a video on youtube shows a guy charging his cell phone using his antenna and a few components.  Some think he is tapping into the aether or the energy in the air while others say no, he is just using the power transmitted by local radio and tv stations.  Here is a good case for what I am talking about.  No matter where the energy is coming from, we all know it is coming from somewhere.  Even if it is from a radio station, the radio station's electric bill did not go up because this guy intercepted some signals.  The transmitter does not know if the signals broadcast are going into a radio, or this guy's device.

So, free energy?  Yes, I think so.  Free to him energy?  Yes, and I don't think he is stealing anything.  Overunity?  Well, he is getting 100% more power out than he put in, so to him, yes.  Is it really overunity?  Probably not because you can calculate the strength of the signals broadcast and his distance from the transmitter, and all of the loses in his circuitry and I would bet the numbers come out to be exactly what he is getting.

Thanks for posting here.  Maybe we can all learn a little something, I know I have already.  Good luck with your experiments.


@ Spinner:

OK, besides the device mentioned above, consider the earth battery.  It is a closed system and one gets out way more than one puts into the system because you don't put anything in to it.  So, this should make it overunity....correct?  But, maybe not.  After all the power is coming from somewhere and it follows all of the rules of electrical devices once made, and possibly if we knew enough about where or how it is coming from, I would bet we would see unity as Captainpecan described earlier.  I do feel it qualifies for the term free energy as it is free and also, not stealing.

Here is something interesting Locajoe brought up on his original earth battery topic.  Find a tree, tap in a nail about 1/4" deep.  Take a voltmeter and put your neg. probe on the tree and the positive probe into the earth.  I did this and got 1.4 vdc.  Evidently that energy is there and has always been there, we just do not use it.  Can you imagine the power available in a large forest?  Thanks for your post.

@Khabe:

I also agree with you.  A human can eat 1 apple (for fuel) and move tons of stone with a shovel.  Talk about the efficient use of renewable fuels....the human body does this every day.  Why can't we figure out how to take a peanut butter sandwich and get all of the energy (both electrical and mechanical) out of it that our bodies can?  Our bodies may not operate at overunity but I'll bet it is close.  (maybe 99.9991275%?) Thanks.


@ All:

I really appreciate the way in which all of you are discussing this potentially highly charged subject in a decent, intelligent and respectful manner.  This is how we will succeed.

Bill

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 09:50:15 PM
@ All:

I really appreciate the way in which all of you are discussing this potentially highly charged subject in a decent, intelligent and respectful manner.  This is how we will succeed.

Bill

Well said sir!

Looking up the definition of "free energy" online, you will also find many definitions. Most still however lean towards the same meaning I think, just worded differently.

"Energy that is actually available to do useful work." taken from
http://schools.look4.net.nz/science/chemistry/index/glossaryF

Or

"The amount of energy available for reactions to occur." taken from
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Free_energy

By definition, free energy is everywhere!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 10:10:54 PM
What we all search is more electrical energy out than put in.  Free energy is the answer, it's simple, just not easy.  All that is needed to do is use a small amount of electrical energy to cause an unbalanced system, forcing other forms of energy into the system doing what they need to in order to restore that balance. Now convert those forms of energy that entered the system, into electrical, as well as conserving the original electrical energy we used to start the process.  You end up with more electrical energy out than you put in... Still exactly unity though when you measure all forms of energy... But now you are making use of "available" free energy, without violating any laws of physics!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 14, 2008, 10:14:30 PM
free energy is a by-product of over-unity which may be the function of a device either mechanical or electrical in nature.

I also dispute that an earth battery creates either on the grounds that work is done to create the device, similar but not the same as creating a magnet.

Nuffsaid

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 14, 2008, 10:42:53 PM
free energy is a by-product of over-unity which may be the function of a device either mechanical or electrical in nature.

I also dispute that an earth battery creates either on the grounds that work is done to create the device, similar but not the same as creating a magnet.

Nuffsaid



@ Dean:

I am not sure exactly what you mean by the above.  By definition, work is done to create any device but I am not sure this is what you meant?  In the case of a magnet, there is no work done to create it (by man) if it is the kind occurring naturally. (Loadstone)  In the case of a man-made magnet, yes, there is work done so in this particular case it can be seen as more of a battery which stores the electrical energy put into it that caused the magnetization.

As far as the earth battery goes, I do not see what work is really done to make a simple one?  I mean you just stick the two electrodes into the ground in the proper alignment and....there it is.  If you are speaking of the energy required to produce the electrodes, well sure, I am sure it took some.  But, if this is the standard by which we judge some device then no one will ever have free energy or overunity.  I mean it takes power to manufacture transistors and capacitors and resistors and I am not sure if we should be adding that into the equation.  How would we ever know how much it took to make something?  How would we ever be able to assign a value to it?

Quite possibly I misunderstood your meaning.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: infringer on December 14, 2008, 10:51:23 PM
When I have it you'll know it when you have it I can only hope to know it...

See how that works that is OU and free energy.

-infringer-
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Trino Cularoid on December 14, 2008, 11:09:34 PM
Many good points. I'm partial to a "goal-driven" "definition". Basically, what I want to achieve is more sovereignty and independence for every individual who chooses so (and I don't consider "working harder" such a desirable choice option).

In the long term, that also means, for example, it has to be "renewable" and "sustainable" in the sense that over time the quality of living for all should not degrade (it does if you produce waste that "cannot" be recycled, like nuclear waste, or that doesn't "grow back" fast enough, like oil, or if it changes the environment so that you or future generations need medication or psychological support to live as well). Excluding things we currently cannot manipulate so easily (sun, ice age, state of fear?).

Independence of any "networks" must be guaranteed (be that electrical power, water, air, food, financial, taxes, communication, social) at any time if anybody desires so. In other words, no network is allowed to control people. This doesn't look like it's directly related to technical issues, but often technology and infrastructure is used as a means to control instead of making life simpler and more enjoyable, and to fix it "backwards" by starting with technology is difficult.

I guess looking at the current financial situation gives enough ideas what kind of networks won't benefit everybody. BTW, nothing against networks per se, but I think if technology is developed to allow more independence first, then the step to adapt it for networking is much easier than the other way round.

So if I can combine different partial solutions and achieve above, then I'm fine, I guess. Whether they adhere to establish physical laws or not doesn't matter that much (for example, if I don't have a formula to explain it but can build a machine using some kind of approximation model, that's good enough for a start). If "clean" technology comes from an extraterrestrial source and they don't lock us (individually or collectively) into trade/religious/communication networks, fine.

Hmmm... Not sure if that will lead to a clear-cut definition for FE or OU so soon...  ;D
But if an invention contributes to above then it could be considered to be a part of an FE or OU "device", right?
So it's some kind of indirect definition that allows a lot more freedom and possibilities for the individual parts.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 14, 2008, 11:38:34 PM
free energy is a by-product of over-unity which may be the function of a device either mechanical or electrical in nature.

I also dispute that an earth battery creates either on the grounds that work is done to create the device, similar but not the same as creating a magnet.

Nuffsaid

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at either?  "By saying free energy is a by-product of over-unity", are you saying no free energy exists unless there is over-unity? I'm just not following your opinion I guess.

I really don't know what you are trying to say with the last part of your post?  Could you clarify your views please?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 15, 2008, 12:24:47 PM
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at either?  "By saying free energy is a by-product of over-unity", are you saying no free energy exists unless there is over-unity? I'm just not following your opinion I guess.

I really don't know what you are trying to say with the last part of your post?  Could you clarify your views please?

I interpret it as Overunity being a function of a device whereby free energy is the product of that function.
I suppose its an oversimplification however, i see them as hierarchically related where one is a subnode of the other.

As for the earth battery:

I percieve it as displacment of potentiatly. The materials used to create the earth battery will eventually decompose releasing their free ions which were gathered or rearranged in the process of construction.

Hope that helps illuminate my point.

Cheers,

Dean



 
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2008, 05:57:10 PM
@ Dean: (Partial quote from Dean below)

"I percieve it as displacment of potentiatly. The materials used to create the earth battery will eventually decompose releasing their free ions which were gathered or rearranged in the process of construction."

I am not sure this is a fair statement.  Everything made by man will decompose, eventually.  Everything.  (even nuclear waste) So again, if this is your "acid test" for an energy device, you will never have any, no matter what.  Every component of any device will be gone in a long enough period of time.

I am not arguing with you.  I think this is one of those subjects that can't really be argued as no one really knows the answer.  It can, however, be discussed and I would be interested in doing so.  Thanks.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 15, 2008, 06:41:24 PM
@ Dean: (Partial quote from Dean below)

"I percieve it as displacment of potentiatly. The materials used to create the earth battery will eventually decompose releasing their free ions which were gathered or rearranged in the process of construction."

I am not sure this is a fair statement.  Everything made by man will decompose, eventually.  Everything.  (even nuclear waste) So again, if this is your "acid test" for an energy device, you will never have any, no matter what.  Every component of any device will be gone in a long enough period of time.

I am not arguing with you.  I think this is one of those subjects that can't really be argued as no one really knows the answer.  It can, however, be discussed and I would be interested in doing so.  Thanks.

Bill

Ok I agree decompose is not the best word to use there ..
Maybe the point would be that the earth battery would use all the available free ions in the materials and cease to operate over time.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2008, 06:57:50 PM
Ok I agree decompose is not the best word to use there ..
Maybe the point would be that the earth battery would use all the available free ions in the materials and cease to operate over time.


Could not the same thing be said of the silicon in a solar cell?  If given enough time, I am sure they would break down too right?

Just to be clear, with my experiments on the earth battery technology, I have not observed any decomposition or breakdown of any of the materials involved.  Of course, this has only been in use for about 1.5 years so, not a long term observation by any means.  I would think that if some serious decomposition were to occur over a long time, I would see some evidence of it at this point....maybe not.  I dug up my electrodes a little while back and looked at them under my microscope and could see nothing anywhere on the surfaces.  Since this is not a galvanic reaction, I didn't really expect to see any but, to be fair,  I can only guess at what they will look like 10 years from now since I don't really know.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 15, 2008, 08:15:22 PM
Ok I agree decompose is not the best word to use there ..
Maybe the point would be that the earth battery would use all the available free ions in the materials and cease to operate over time.


What you describe sounds like perpetual motion.  Are you suggesting that free energy = perpetual motion?

I get what your saying for the most part, I kinda view it differently, but hey, that's what we're here for.  I believe what you are saying is that as soon as you get more "electrical energy" out of a device then you put put in, it becomes over-unity. The excess energy, over and above the energy used to make it, becomes the "free energy".  And I think you are saying that in order for it to be free energy, it must be permanent and never "disolve" or not be able to be replenished...

Is that close to your views?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 15, 2008, 08:58:53 PM

Even a cursory inspection of the "laws" of thermodynamics reveal a level of assumptive arrogance that is typical of what passes for 'wisdom' among mankind.


Take for instance the first 'law' of thermodynamics.  One 'assumes' that energy can neither be created nor destroyed....yet most believe in 'big bang' cosmology.  If energy cannot be created, then our universe was always here, nullifying the big bang theory.


If however, one subcribes to the statements:


"let there be light"

and

"It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom, And by His understanding He stretched out the heavens."


Then one may gain hold of a greater understanding regarding 'Free energy' or getting more out than we put in.....



TS
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 15, 2008, 09:12:46 PM
One way to think of it the way I see it.

Picture a bowling ball resting at the top of a steep incline.  At the bottom of the incline is a bunch of glass glasses.  Now if you were to exert a tiny little push with your finger on those glasses, they may move a tiny bit. Nothing great.  But if you were to exert the exact same little push on the bowling ball, it would roll forward, begin rolling down the incline picking up extra energy from gravity, momentum, and whatever else.  Now what happens to those glasses when the bowling ball hits them...  They all shatter!

With this example, the exact same amount of force was put into touching the glasses with your finger, as was put into touching the bowling ball with your finger.  But the energy the bowling ball exerted was much different.

Now, with this example, the extra energy that bowling ball gained on it's way to the glasses was free energy.  "Available" energy that it gained along the way.  You did not ad this energy.  It entered the system by other means.  Although you ended up with much more force hitting the glasses than you put into pushing the bowling ball, it is not over-unity.  If you only figured in the amount of force you exerted, and compared it to the amount of force the bowling ball exerted, then it surely would show over-unity.  But that would be an incorrect way of figuring it.  Over-Unity is measured by all forces entering the equation, compared to all forces leaving the equation.  So if you compare the force that was exerted on the glasses and whatever else it took to make the bowling ball stop, with the force you exerted on the bowling ball, and all the forces of gravity, and momentum, and any other energies that made the bowling ball move...  You end up with exactly Unity!

Free Energy... yes...  Over-Unity.. no...

Perpetual Motion may be possible, due to a system being at exact unity, except for one thing.  The little word "forever" that is added to it's definition.  Perpetual Motion machines must run "forever" without ever stopping.  We have not invented a way to eliminate all forms of friction and resistance, so even if you were to get a device to run for 500yrs before it stopped, it is still going to eventually wear out and stop, thus meaning it is not perpetual motion.  I really wish this term did not get associated with "free energy", as I believe this is one of the reasons that "free energy buffs" get so much ridicule.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 15, 2008, 09:21:35 PM
Take for instance the first 'law' of thermodynamics.  One 'assumes' that energy can neither be created nor destroyed....yet most believe in 'big bang' cosmology.  If energy cannot be created, then our universe was always here, nullifying the big bang theory.

To be honest, I think they will say the universe had "Potential" energy before the big band... lol...  That little word potential energy is kind of the answer to most any energy phenomenon we cant really explain.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 15, 2008, 09:45:49 PM
@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 15, 2008, 10:53:12 PM
@Bill

Your exactly right, that bowling ball had potential energy stored in it.  Which is the reason it all adds up to Unity.  Without that potential, the other forms of energy could not have entered into the equation causing the glasses to shatter.  Like if the bowling ball was sitting right next to the glasses, touching them. Then if you touched it, it would simply transfer the energy of the touch to the glasses, and they would not shatter, they would just get pushed a little.

I think you and I view it all pretty much exactly the same, although terminology may differ slightly from time to time.

I would like to hear what Spark's has to say on this issue!  I always like following his posts, as there seems to always be something interesting, and he always presents his knowledge in a way that gets me thinking... !
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 16, 2008, 12:29:01 AM
One way to think of it the way I see it.

Picture a bowling ball resting at the top of a steep incline.  At the bottom of the incline is a bunch of glass glasses.  Now if you were to exert a tiny little push with your finger on those glasses, they may move a tiny bit. Nothing great.  But if you were to exert the exact same little push on the bowling ball, it would roll forward, begin rolling down the incline picking up extra energy from gravity, momentum, and whatever else.  Now what happens to those glasses when the bowling ball hits them...  They all shatter!

With this example, the exact same amount of force was put into touching the glasses with your finger, as was put into touching the bowling ball with your finger.  But the energy the bowling ball exerted was much different.

Now, with this example, the extra energy that bowling ball gained on it's way to the glasses was free energy.  "Available" energy that it gained along the way.  You did not ad this energy.  It entered the system by other means.  Although you ended up with much more force hitting the glasses than you put into pushing the bowling ball, it is not over-unity.  If you only figured in the amount of force you exerted, and compared it to the amount of force the bowling ball exerted, then it surely would show over-unity.  But that would be an incorrect way of figuring it.  Over-Unity is measured by all forces entering the equation, compared to all forces leaving the equation.  So if you compare the force that was exerted on the glasses and whatever else it took to make the bowling ball stop, with the force you exerted on the bowling ball, and all the forces of gravity, and momentum, and any other energies that made the bowling ball move...  You end up with exactly Unity!

Free Energy... yes...  Over-Unity.. no...

Perpetual Motion may be possible, due to a system being at exact unity, except for one thing.  The little word "forever" that is added to it's definition.  Perpetual Motion machines must run "forever" without ever stopping.  We have not invented a way to eliminate all forms of friction and resistance, so even if you were to get a device to run for 500yrs before it stopped, it is still going to eventually wear out and stop, thus meaning it is not perpetual motion.  I really wish this term did not get associated with "free energy", as I believe this is one of the reasons that "free energy buffs" get so much ridicule.

You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 16, 2008, 12:33:00 AM
@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill

Perpetual motion might best be described as a lossless closed system. Again though this defies the 3rd law...


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 16, 2008, 01:03:59 AM
You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.


No, I never ignored it.  I just forgot to mention it.  I answered that one in a later post, as Bill was quick to point it out also...  ;).  The example is not meant to show Over-Unity, only to show my definition of what energy could be called "free" energy.  I was referring to the extra energy that showed it's head making the ball roll with more velocity.  It was energy that was always there to begin with, hince, no over-unity. I am terming it as "free" energy only because it was "available" energy you could not see and you did not exert onto the object to start with.  It was energy that was once just "available", but now was "used".  Just a simple example that will exert more force into the glasses, than the force put into the bowling ball.  There still was no gain in overall energy, that was kind of the point... It just appears to have more energy out then in. In actuality, it's still just Unity as always.


From your posts, I get the feeling you believe it is impossible to have free energy, over-unity, or perpetual motion?  Is this really your beliefs?  If not, please explain where you think the energy is going to come from to make a valid free energy device.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 01:20:51 AM
@ Captainpecan:

Here is a slight adjustment to your bowling ball example:  2 Cavemen are standing on top of a hill.  They are leaning against a large round rock while trying to think of a way to clear some trees out down below so they can make a hut.

The 1st caveman says he has no idea and tries to sit down on the rock, which starts to move.  He jumps off just in time and he, and the other caveman, watch this gigantic boulder begin rolling down the hill toward the grove of small trees.

Well, you can guess what happens.  Yes, the trees are plowed over and their work, which was going to take them all summer, was now done it 30 seconds with very little effort on their part.

OK, so the rock was there on the hilltop for over 3.15 million years as was the gravity surrounding it.  The cavemen do not know about gravity as this was prior to Newton, and they have no idea about overunity either. they have no idea that the boulder had potential energy.

What I am trying to say is, to the cavemen, who were then quickly elected chief engineers of their tribe, had no idea where the energy came from, they just used it.  We know about the potential energy and, as Captainpecan has stated many times, there was unity there.  Try telling that to the cavemen.  Of course, by now I imagine they have passed away.

We are, in many ways, like the cavemen.  All sources of power have not been discovered or documented.  Until that day, should it occur, we will have what some think is overunity but is, in reality, unity.

Bill                     PS  Sorry for the crummy story, I just made it up to attempt to explain my thoughts.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 16, 2008, 01:47:53 AM

Quote
They can't have it both ways can they?



Absolutely right!   


Oh but they'll try......and try.....


TS
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Digjam on December 16, 2008, 02:02:16 AM
I agree with Pirate , there needs to be a definition.
But maybe we are looking at the Wrong words..

ALL Energy is FREE and NO Energy is FREE.

Example:Suppose You are in the desert, There is plenty of heat from the sun
All you could possibly want .BUT The more of the heat your body absorbs,
the more it costs you in water-loss.(dehydration).
SO it is free for the taking, but there is Always a cost in the using.

If, as science says:Energy can't be created or destroyed, then the term
"Renewable Energy" is also wrong , And "Reusable Energy".Well is would seem to
be logical that ALL Energy is Reusable.So that term fails.

I think the word "Energy" should be left out of the "what we are looking for"
We hear reports of "Peak Oil" . And that is where some get it wrong.
Oil is NOT energy.. it is just a fuel or container ..When ALL the Oil is gone
there will still be Just as much "Energy" as there was before the dinosaurs rotted.

SO.What ARE we looking for ?? A new container? a New fuel? a New extraction method?
A new Harnessing method?

We all want "Free",but there is Always a cost.

As for Overunity .That word should probably be thrown out is favor in"Most Efficient"
We all know that Nature ( the universe) strives for equilibrium therefore Overunity is an impossibility.


If all we want is "Free Energy" then it is All around us.
So maybe it isn't Definitions we need, but different Terms.

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 16, 2008, 02:10:29 AM

I vote for "most efficient".



TS
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: FreeEnergy on December 16, 2008, 02:46:26 AM
thanks for starting this topic Pirate88179!  :)

we definitely needed a topic like this. my brain tickles lol  :D
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 03:24:48 AM
@ All:

OK, here is one I am tossing out:  0 Cost energy.  This would represent all energy that is available to us at "no cost" meaning financially.  Of course, this does not mean for folks to steal energy....I can add that specifically to a definition.

@TechStuf:

I like most efficient as well.  It does not imply that the energy comes from nowhere and also, handles the stealing part.

I think I can say that my earth battery is 0 Cost energy.

I can also say that it is "most efficient" as well.  This is great, now we are getting somewhere.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: utilitarian on December 16, 2008, 03:53:36 AM

I think I can say that my earth battery is 0 Cost energy.


Until the Earth is depleted of charge!  Will we lose our magnetic field then?  The magnetic field is vital to keeping some deadly radiation from reaching our planet's surface, so we really need that field to stay on.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Digjam on December 16, 2008, 04:42:18 AM
@ All:

OK, here is one I am tossing out:  0 Cost energy.  This would represent all energy that is available to us at "no cost" meaning financially.  Of course, this does not mean for folks to steal energy....I can add that specifically to a definition.



You are still using the term "energy" .. Since All Energy is "Free" you can't steal it.

I think what you are talking about is "Power" or maybe not.
Does the electric grid transmit Power? or Energy?
If you cut down a tree for firewood, is it energy? or does it contain energy, or is it just a fuel?
Surely when you burn it you have heat which IS "thermal Energy" but what was it before the fire?
Wood won't burn in a lack of oxygen , so is oxygen energy?
Do we really care what is energy or do we care more what is power, or is what we are looking for fuel?

We can all agree that whatever it is we are looking for we want that something to be abundant and
knows no national boundaries.



@Pirate
How many earth batteries would it take to"Power" my house ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 05:04:34 AM
@ Digjam:

Well, Nathan Stubblefield heated his home, illuminated his home and farm and ran the entire telephone system of Murry, Ky off of his earth batteries....and this was in the late 1890's.  I am not sure how many it took...but...who cares?  It was all free.  The power grid did not make it to his area until many, many years later.  That is why I am so fascinated by this device.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all energy is free.  This is ok as we all have our opinions and these are uncharted waters.  Try telling your opinion to your power company and see what happens.... ha ha.  I think I get what you mean though.  Heck, right now, the air we breathe is free but I would not be shocked if sometime in the near future, we have to pay an air company bill for all of the breaths we take.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 05:08:10 AM
thanks for starting this topic Pirate88179!  :)

we definitely needed a topic like this. my brain tickles lol  :D

Thank you for your post.  Yes, I think it is interesting but, there may not be an agreeable solution to this dilemma. That is why I started this.  0 cost energy is all around us and we can all tap into it if we choose.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Digjam on December 16, 2008, 05:15:21 AM
@ Digjam:

Well, Nathan Stubblefield heated his home, illuminated his home and farm and ran the entire telephone system of Murry, Ky off of his earth batteries....and this was in the late 1890's.  I am not sure how many it took...but...who cares?  It was all free.  The power grid did not make it to his area until many, many years later.  That is why I am so fascinated by this device.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that all energy is free.  This is ok as we all have our opinions and these are uncharted waters.  Try telling your opinion to your power company and see what happens.... ha ha.  I think I get what you mean though.  Heck, right now, the air we breathe is free but I would not be shocked if sometime in the near future, we have to pay an air company bill for all of the breaths we take.

Bill

Well, water is free, but I get a bill every month for it too  ;D
Anyway , what I was saying is that the energy itself is free, what we pay for is the conversion
and delivery . That's why the question , does the grid deliver energy or Power? ;)



I'll give another example of what I mean that energy is free, but has a cost.

I'm in the southern US . We have 2 power companies in my state, and they have 3 types of Power
Plants.
1: Hydroelectric 2: Coal-Fired 3: Nuclear

all those 3 of those have one thing in common: Water
now the coal fired and the nuclear also use a fuel .. The Water, the Coal , and the Radioactive Materials
are ALL Natural resources which are in essence FREE.. the cost is in the extraction of the fuels,and the infrastructure to CONVERT the energy to electricity and DISTRIBUTE the electricity.


So maybe what we are seeking is a "FREE ENERGY COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION" unit ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 05:49:28 AM
@ Digjam:

Good question.  In electrical terms, power is amps.  I always thought of energy as both volts and amps but it could also mean a lot of other things.  So, my vote would be both in answer to your question.

Yes, I agree with what you said about the water bill.  We are essentially paying for the infrastructure and delivery systems.  I guess the same could be said of oil really. (as well as a lot of other things)

Trust me, if I thought I had the answers here, I would have never started this topic. My main goal was to get folks thinking about what we are actually trying to do here.  Also, to attempt to establish some defined objective that is acceptable to most so, if/when one of us "does it" we can all agree on what was done.  Hopefully, I have opened some eyes.

Research, I have found, is a lot like my Investigations business.  You raise a lot more questions than answers.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: hansvonlieven on December 16, 2008, 07:09:30 AM
  I think I get what you mean though.  Heck, right now, the air we breathe is free but I would not be shocked if sometime in the near future, we have to pay an air company bill for all of the breaths we take.

Bill

G'day Bill and all,

Perhaps not, but you will almost certainly have to purchase carbon credits for the carbon dioxide you breathe out and the methane you fart.

George Orwell, here we come.

Hans von Lieven
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 16, 2008, 07:20:08 AM
So maybe what we are seeking is a "FREE ENERGY COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION" unit ;)

I couldn't agree more. As I said earlier, terminology may differ, but we are after the same thing. My ultimate goal, is to create a generator about the size of a hot water heater, that will power your house and any electrical needs you may have, without being on the grid at all.  Then storms, hurricanes, whatever may happen outside, you have power and heat inside.  Not to mention power can be placed anywhere with this method, like third world countries that have never even had electricity.  Figuring out how to fuel that generator, is what we seek. Is it possible, sure it is, we just haven't figured out how to do it yet. 

Nitrogen is readily available, the air we breath is 80%... I personally feel the answer is in reusing the same electrical current many times over again, but that's an argument for a different thread... lol
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 07:20:35 AM
@ Hans:

Welcome!  By the way, I do not fart.  Well, ok maybe after eating certain foods.....well, ok, maybe after eating most foods.  The beer helps with this condition.  Well, ok, maybe not really. 

Yes, we are trying to save the planet from the breath we exhale.  This is pseudo-science at its best.  One volcano eruption releases (act of God and/or nature) thousands of times more "greenhouse gases" than mankind has released since our existence.  That's one eruption.  There are many on this planet every year.

I think we are exporting Al gore to Australia which will end our problems but...yours are just beginning.  I think the Aborigines probably fart and breathe as well.  God help them.

I would be interested in knowing what you think of the questions postulated by my topic.  I did quote you in one of my first posts here. (the crude oil and the match)  I know we discussed this a little back on the earth battery topic last year.  I am just looking to seek some common ground on what it is we are looking for, so we know when we find it.

Good to hear from you Hans.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: hansvonlieven on December 16, 2008, 07:26:50 AM
Hi Bill, Greetings

The answer to your question is simple.

One tit that never dries up is free energy!

Two tits that never dry up is overunity!

See, I told you it was simple.  ;D

Hans
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 16, 2008, 07:58:52 AM
@Hans

By George, I think he's got it!!!!!!!!   Throw in a beer keg that never runs out and I'm home free!!!!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 16, 2008, 08:17:33 AM
Hi Bill, Greetings

The answer to your question is simple.

One tit that never dries up is free energy!

Two tits that never dry up is overunity!

See, I told you it was simple.  ;D

Hans

Thanks Hans!  That was classic.  (smile) Or should I say....Thanks for the mammorys.  (sorry)


Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: wings on December 16, 2008, 08:52:09 AM
Until the Earth is depleted of charge!  Will we lose our magnetic field then?  The magnetic field is vital to keeping some deadly radiation from reaching our planet's surface, so we really need that field to stay on.

   
I agree with what you say, I think that the free energy is also the source of life on earth.

DNA double helix .......
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: dean_mcgowan on December 16, 2008, 10:00:33 AM
No, I never ignored it.  I just forgot to mention it.  I answered that one in a later post, as Bill was quick to point it out also...  ;).  The example is not meant to show Over-Unity, only to show my definition of what energy could be called "free" energy.  I was referring to the extra energy that showed it's head making the ball roll with more velocity.  It was energy that was always there to begin with, hince, no over-unity. I am terming it as "free" energy only because it was "available" energy you could not see and you did not exert onto the object to start with.  It was energy that was once just "available", but now was "used".  Just a simple example that will exert more force into the glasses, than the force put into the bowling ball.  There still was no gain in overall energy, that was kind of the point... It just appears to have more energy out then in. In actuality, it's still just Unity as always.


From your posts, I get the feeling you believe it is impossible to have free energy, over-unity, or perpetual motion?  Is this really your beliefs?  If not, please explain where you think the energy is going to come from to make a valid free energy device.

Ok, I imagine it this way :

Imagine the fabric of space has tiny holes in it, much too small for energy to escape through, say like a balloon with sand in it which has a small hole
with a diameter smaller than a grain of sand. I imagine that we create 2 small hooks and insert them either side of the hole and use enough force to
open the hole just wide enough for energy/sand to escape. Not unlike the idea of the cavemen gently pushing the bolder. However the rules as they are would
require that equilibrium is achieved therefore i think that we need another balloon/hole configuration to allow the flow of sand to continue back into the system
with maybe a water wheel in between the two balloons to capture/convert the flow, like interrupting the the flow of a river / wind etc. into usable energy.

The main flaw i see in most designs is that much like the spark gap ideas, people are widening the hole and creating a water wheel but are not directing the
flow by providing a sink for the energy to return to. Its like they are exploding a firework and trying to capture only a few of the sparks from one sector and the rest of the energy returns back to its source point.

I suppose the analogy is kind of childlike but I hope that it expresses my view on the matter.

Regards,

Dean

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Trino Cularoid on December 16, 2008, 11:40:09 AM
"let there be light"

I kind of doubt that this meant physical light (energy). In today's language and understanding, "awareness (of Self)" instead of "light" could be a more accurate interpretation. Also, many believe consciousness and soul exist, yet these don't consist of energy.

Take for instance the first 'law' of thermodynamics.  One 'assumes' that energy can neither be created nor destroyed....yet most believe in 'big bang' cosmology.  If energy cannot be created, then our universe was always here, nullifying the big bang theory.

Some try to work around it by introducing additional dimensions (String theory, M-theory, many others). There, energy could have always existed but it is moving between dimensions, and as some energy "suddenly" shifted into our space and time frame, it _looked_ like a big bang to us.

There is no proof that energy cannot be generated (mathematically, you "cannot" prove that something doesn't exist). But nobody has observed or admitted energy creation within an established scientific framework (yet).
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 16, 2008, 08:55:16 PM
Interesting take.....I always understood it to mean the entire EM spectrum, given that the Holy Record goes on to mention Yahweh creating the greater light for the day and lesser for the night.   "Let there be light" could encompass our known universe, "He stretched out the expanse of the Heavens".

Quote
Some try to work around it by introducing additional dimensions (String theory, M-theory, many others). There, energy could have always existed but it is moving between dimensions, and as some energy "suddenly" shifted into our space and time frame, it _looked_ like a big bang to us.

Rather than 'see', many prefer to keep 'looking'.....which is why the braintrusts of institutionalized science keep butting their heads against the solid wall of a dark matter.  For even if they try to explain their way around the first law's limitations, they just come to another mirror of their own limitations.  It seems obvious that no matter how many additional dimensions they surmise there must be, they either came into existence somehow, IE, created by some agency, or always existed.

Either way, it highlights the juvenile and presumptious notion that "energy CANNOT be created" when understood for the blanket statement that it truly is.....and in the greater analysis, goes to show that institutional science is as much a religion as any other.  We are all only human, afterall.


TS



Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 16, 2008, 10:53:56 PM
I kind of doubt that this meant physical light (energy). In today's language and understanding, "awareness (of Self)" instead of "light" could be a more accurate interpretation. Also, many believe consciousness and soul exist, yet these don't consist of energy.

Actually, again, just another point of view.  Not that I view it one way or another, but I would like to point out that pretty much every "Ghost Hunter" believes they are all energy.  Do they exist or not?  Are they correct or not?  Not really related to this topic...  But it is interesting to note that one of my favorite shows "Ghost Hunters" on sci-fi network I think, ALWAYS gets the EMF detector spiking when something weird and unexplainable happens... To be honest, I believe every single thing in the universe is energy. Einstein believes the same thing.  If this is true, then our very consciousness and soul would also be energy.  Who knows, I'm just throwing out some twisted thoughts.....
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2008, 12:55:51 AM
@ Captainpecan:

I have read the same and I believe that to be true also.  Like you said, it does not mean I am correct, but all the evidence I have seen points to this being true, at least for me. Thoughts and consciousness are energy so why not the soul? Just my opinion here.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 17, 2008, 01:06:38 AM

"This just in, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off until further notice"


You know, it is interesting to speculate just how wide the EM sprectrum truly is!



TS


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: ramset on December 17, 2008, 01:44:17 AM
TS
Its supposed to be

Due to recent cut backs, the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off [until further notice]
   Chet
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: captainpecan on December 17, 2008, 02:39:05 AM
Well if we could get that free energy generator going, maybe we could afford the power to turn that light back on!  ;D
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 17, 2008, 02:53:58 AM

don't worry guys....Obama's gonna stick it to the man real good and get Al gore to invent something to save us real quick like!


 :-[


TS
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2008, 02:58:15 AM
don't worry guys....Obama's gonna stick it to the man real good and get Al gore to invent something to save us real quick like!


 :-[


TS

God help us.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: hansvonlieven on December 17, 2008, 04:07:36 AM
Sorry guys,

The light at the end of the tunnel is a rapidly approaching freight train driven by Yahweh, that will destroy us all.

If you don't believe me ask Tech-Stuf.

Hans von Lieven

 :(
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: FreeEnergy on December 17, 2008, 09:19:44 AM
Sorry guys,

The light at the end of the tunnel is a rapidly approaching freight train driven by Yahweh, that will destroy us all.

If you don't believe me ask Tech-Stuf.

Hans von Lieven

 :(



LoL
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2008, 09:37:16 AM
@ Hans:

Hey, if we lined that tunnel with a large coil of copper wire and glued magnets on the train, we could generate enough power to light the end of the tunnel, could we not?  Of course this would not be "free energy" but it would be "0 Cost Energy" as the train is moving anyway.  We could call it "Faraday's tunnel".

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Trino Cularoid on December 17, 2008, 02:03:28 PM
[...] every single thing in the universe is energy. [...] If this is true, then our very consciousness and soul would also be energy.

May very well be (for this universe). I would, however, be more comfortable if consciousness could manipulate energy but itself doesn't _have_ to be energy (or matter, for that matter).

Apparently, there are studies that a body gets a very little lighter when a person dies, so some kind of energy/matter seems to be leaving -- but consciousness that is letting go of energy would also work as explanation, I guess.

Maybe it's more complicated: Consciousness could imbed itself into energy/matter but could also exist independently. And energy/matter could be (intentionally or accidentally) programmed so that it would act and look like it would be conscious (but would be more like some kind of artificial intelligence)...  ;D
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 17, 2008, 06:52:12 PM

To hear Hans tell it, I'm quite a doomsayer!   If what I've shared only sounds like "Doom",  I reply: 


Only to those who must feel they have it coming.


Here's a funny but though provoking little animation I first found over at Sterling Allan's site:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZ6dBpjz44



TS

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 17, 2008, 08:14:54 PM
@ TecStuf:

Now that was funny!!  Great animation.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TechStuf on December 18, 2008, 04:02:22 AM

I LOL 'd !


It is hilarious....


Except....maybe....to those it's happened to....


(insert Rod Serling theme here)


TS

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: FreeEnergy on December 18, 2008, 08:35:56 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiZ6dBpjz44



TS



lol that was so very funny lol!

very cool!

lol
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WattBuilder on October 14, 2009, 09:55:01 AM
Too bad this work is not complete. We need to vote and stick it on the forum doors until the need to change it, if ever.

We need a leader to step up and organize this vote. Any volunteers?

Howard 
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: spoondini on October 14, 2009, 04:19:43 PM
Wattbuilder - The leader of this board has already defined what meets the criteria to win the overunity prize:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0

I'm sure I don't speak for all, but I find it reasonable.  If you can meet the conditions, it's CLEARLY overunity.  Personally I would never send an OU device unpatented for the purposes of collecting $10k (I believe a fatal flaw in the conditions), but I'll bet that even if you sent a patented device which generated 1watt power Stefan would declare you the king of OU.

I've seen the previous posts about what really is OU, and from any given perspective it can differ - agreed.  However if the YU generator continues to accelerate, you'll know you have OU.  If it doesn't, and continues to stop/slow down, any OU you might have is so minimal that it can't overcome the friction - much less perform any meaningful work.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WattBuilder on October 14, 2009, 10:20:52 PM
Thanks for the link Spoondini

I am global patent pending.

I agree on it accelerating. 

Cheers
Howard
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: teslaedison on May 11, 2011, 08:50:13 PM
Hello Guys,
     That are doing a great work but I would love to put my two sense into the pot if I may because I did an experiment with just distilled water by itself with the use of Paper clip and stainless steel spoon so if you are interested in how I did it by Tesla's AC with Edison's DC working together please contact me below at bottom of this message.

PS : Here is a video showing white pure H2 and O2 white cloud gases below

http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?at=5776ccb97e4a432d923e9b4186cad72e&a=177157c753114cd4a05ac46773477d7f

Also more information below too.
      You are not giving the totall account of Dr. Randell Mills processes which he says that the electrons are round shape disks when it comes to a positive proton that the electron wraps around it as a bubble so go check his explanation to what I totally believe is true web site below:
www.blacklightpower.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymlc8nk7Mdk

PS if you have any questions about this to please contact me at any time so I can explain his processes which will evidently become the new wave of energy for the future of all of mankind !! 
Sincerely,
Thomas C.
Cell Number: 309-660-4627
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on May 27, 2012, 09:07:58 AM
Ha Ha,Some inspirational words from me,if you want to know the reality!If you design your gravity powered engine logically with Balanced Energy process equation,then nobody will stop you from inventing a gravity Powered engine.

Defination of perpetual Motion Machine from Wikipedia:

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not. 


Gravity engines are possible,but Gravity powered Devices are Not Perpetual Motion Machines.

Well do you know what is the real problem.?

The problem is the dangerous cancerous virus called "Perpetual". Real Gravity engines are not perpetual and PMM do not exists.

People falsely stupidly relate Perpetual motion machines with "Gravity engines" without understanding about PMM (Perpetual Motion Machines)and how gravitational energy can be used to run a gravity engine.

The problem with most people is they do not think properly about the fundamental Principle involved in any Gravity engine which needs little Electrical energy supplied initially.

There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

Idiot People who do not believe in Gravity engines say that since you get more energy than supplied it violates physics and hence Gravity engines are impossible.

But the most worst thing is they do not consider the freely available hidden energy source in nature itself :The amplified larger quantity of gravitational energy used in innovative way than that of energy needed to lift heavy object up.

And the problem lies in cheaters claiming to invent/people attempting engines violating Laws of thermodynamics.
The Internet is full of around 100000 nonsense claims of Perpetual Motion Machines which are actually misguiding most people to believe that either gravity engines are not possible or are perpetual.

The words "gravity engines" themselves reveal that these engines use gravitational energy as input to engine.So there is no question of violating Energy conservation law.That is why I say Everytime that about 60 percet of world is going towards intelluctual drain.

I have putted my research work on Gravity engines here in a proper Format in few new webpages(not the older ones):

Sketch and explanation on: http://flic.kr/p/bycsbo

Further elaboration on:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5266

My blog with three articles as of now on

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog.php?w=7

Here are few more threads I started regarding few more new ideas on Non-Perpetual Gravity wheels/engines:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

And

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5272

My simple experiments have proved that I am on right path.

Please do see these websites.All these are one of the few real scientific documents on"Real Non-Perpetual"Gravity Engines.

People have horrible confussions about gravity engines:

1) 50 percent People at many forums are not ready to accept gravity as a source of energy input and say that Gravity engines break laws of thermodynamics and cannot work.This is a illogical idea,as if people have stopped using their brains and are continuing listening to things others are telling,without validating those things themselves by thinking about it.
These people even do not know that gravitational energy is a usable source of free energy.

One example of these kind of people is

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/98119248301/p/25

They are not willing to accept the proof I have given.
Everytime they try to show the example/analogy of my engine/logical proof as wrong by wrongly Un-Succesfully manupulating it with failure to do so.By trying to prove me wrong ,they are actually violating laws of physics.
Another example is Science Hypography Science Forums who ban any post on Gravity powered engine inspite of giving real proof examples,because they do not want to accept the reality and want to stick to thinking that gravity engines cannot be made.No physics textbooks tells that gravitational energy is not source of energy,it only disagrees with concept of Perpetual Motion Machine.

One illogical explanation/comment from my Opponents: "Gravity is not energy source but it is a force".

I answered:"There is no force without Energy."
These opponents were actually violating the law of conservation of energy,as if no energy is needed to displace anything and anything will move on its own,from up to down.

2) 40 percent people think that Gravity engines are Perpetual,go against law of thermodynamics and are possible.But is actually not at all very correct.

3) 5 percent people either have no idea or have confusions about this.

4) 5 percent people have really understood logically and correctly that Gravity engines are possible and they cannot be perpetual because these engines use somehow gravitational energy as input energy and convert them to usable electrical power.And here you do not get more energy than that you actually totally put in to the system.I am in this category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------–------
Surprisingly,These percentage distribution results are too horrible and unbelievable to me.How most people including big post professors are making such big mistakes regarding understanding of gravity as source of power?This percentage results is clearly showing the brain drain /drain of intelluctuality that's happening in the world.

Converting Freely available energy from nature into other form of Freely available usable energy like electricity is not Perpetual provided you do not generate any magical new energy.
There is a difference between the words"conversion" and "generation".
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on May 28, 2012, 12:44:32 PM
A good information on Real Free energy technologies is available on:

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker on November 24, 2012, 08:01:06 AM
2nd Post... here goes...

Ok, so my take on "Overunity" and "Free Energy" are such....

"Over Unity" means getting more energy out than is being put in.  Duh... right?  ... But let's examine that...

Most people consider this to mean a device that outputs more energy (usually electricity) than is being provided to the device.  This is IMPOSSIBLE.

All energy conversion devices require more energy than they provide to the end use.  The end usable energy available would be exactly the same except for losses...in a different form.

What a lot of people here are wishing to achieve is converting energy that we are not being charged for.... in money, nor effort or one that the net cost less in money or labor than the result would cost. This is why it is called "Free".

Consider this....

When I was 12, I started working on energy conversion ideas.  I put two ring magnets (about 1"OD X 1/4" ID) on a pencil and stuck the pencil into a block of styrofoam.   The two rings were arranged repelling.
The top ring was suspended about 3/4" above the lower ring.   I still have that experiment... I keep it as a motivational piece.   33 years later that top magnet is still floating.  I still have it.

At the time, I was studying potential vs kinetic energy in school (I went to some special schools).  I was always trying to decide whether this energy the two magnets was producing was potential or kinetic?
So which is it?  I decide on kinetic due to the fact that the magnets would spring apart if the space were compressed beyond the weight of of the upper ring.
Consider this like holding a ball in the air using a hose and water pressure.  The water pressure is kinetic even though at some point the ball will cease to gain altitude.

The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

That said, my paradox was that if this were true, then the table supporting a bowling ball was doing "work" just as holding a bowling ball in the air with your arm is doing "work".  Applying a force requires "work", and "work" requires energy.

One of course...has to factor time...

How much energy does it take to lift a 25klb school bus 1" in the air for 1 second?  Be it via lever or electric jack, how much does that second of lift cost?  If it's 50 men lifting it for that one second by hand, how much does it cost in calories?  How much does it cost in calories to lift it for 2 seconds instead?  How many calories to lift that bus up and down 10 times?

Ok, well my little 50cent ring magnets have lifted the weight of that school bus 100's if not thousands of times over when time is considered.  1 ounce of "thrust" for 33 years and still going.

This qualifies (in my book) as "Free Energy" as it cost no more than the original parts (2 magnets, pencil, styrofoam)... its a bargain at the very least, but it does not count as "OverUnity" because the force being produced by these magnets is the source, and they are always producing it.  There is no force coming out more than what is being applied, it's just nearly in expendable in nature.

This is why I always get bothered when folks quote the law of conservation when debunking "free energy" machines.   Just because a 50cent magnet arrangement can lift the equivalent weight many hundreds of thousands of times it's own weight over time doesn't mean energy isn't being "input".  It simply means it's not being paid for, and it's not exhausting.

Consider if you compressed the two magnets and it lifted the top one into the air and then had expended its energy and you had to recharge them to do it again.  You could then weigh the cost of having to recharge the magnets vs the work they did.  If the cost to recharge the magnets was less than the comparable "work", you'd then have an "Overunity" device that breaks the law of conservation.

That however is not the case.  We simply have a nearly inexhaustible source of energy with a near null cost vs work.

So you see, "Free Energy" does exist.  You do have to pay for the parts to convert it.   "OverUnity", in my best estimation... is impossible.

Regards
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 09:04:52 AM
Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

Quote
The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

Work, in physics, is force times distance. Its units are ultimately the same as the units of energy in the Systeme Internationale (SI), that is, the Joule.
If you put a weight on a physical spring, the spring compresses and then just sits there, year after year..... but it's not doing work if the weight isn't moving due to an applied force. In your magnet situation you have a combination of 2 potential energies directed in opposite directions: The GPE of the lifted weight, and the magnetic potential energy of the "spring" of the repelling fields. The system is not moving... this is how you can tell that all the forces are in exact equilibrium!! Therefore no work is being done, in a physics sense.

When you first raise up the top magnet, you have input work by raising the magnet against the earth's gravity... giving it more GPE. When you release the magnet, it moves: converting some of the GPE into real work, which is done against the opposing MPE of the repelling magnetic fields. That is, the GPE must do work against the MPE. When the system stops moving, you are at a point where the downward force produced by gravity on the mass of the object, is exactly equalized by the upward force produced by the repelling fields. You can bounce around this point and see that both fields are conservative: if your rod was frictionless and you were in a vacuum with no drag, you could give the thing a bop and it would bobble forever (but radiating energy as EM vibrations so would eventually stop moving.... when all the energy (the force of your bop times the distance you applied it-- work -- ) you provided from your initial bop was radiated away.) In the real system, I'm sure you have bopped it plenty of times over the years and watched it bounce a bit. Friction against the rod converted the work of your bop into heat and tiny leeetle pieces of sawdust, so the bouncing stopped pretty fast and the system came back into motionless -- and workless -- equilibrium, still storing the initial work you put into it all those years ago when you raised up that upper magnet to put it in place. You can get it back at any time though: when you lift the upper magnet up off the rod, the magnetic field repulsion will "help" you and you will be doing less work than if the field wasn't repelling.

ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!
 ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 25, 2012, 06:28:43 PM
ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!
 ;)
don't be asinine... ::)  no human 'payed' for the sun...  ::)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker on November 25, 2012, 07:11:38 PM
Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

Work, in physics, is force times distance....  <snip>
 ;)

Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.

So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.

The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.

As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TinselKoala on November 25, 2012, 09:26:08 PM
Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.
If permanent magnets were electromagnets all kinds of things would be different. Yes, it takes work to sustain a magnetic field in an electromagnet, unless you are using superconductors, in which case it takes work to keep them cold. Work is not measured in "years"..... the "work/year" would be a measure of POWER like the Watt (which is a Joule of work or energy PER second) and yes,  the electric company will bill you for the total energy in watt-seconds (tiny chunks of kW-H) or ..... Joules.



So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.
[/qute] So? You aren't going to be able to do _work_ against the gravitational field of force, in order to levitate the other magnet up to a stable non-moving position unless you input some _energy_.... equivalent to work..... to the system to do it. And guess what: the input energy, input at a rate measured in Watts, will determine how fast your levitated part rises and how high.
Quote
The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.
Thrust is a "force" measured in newtons, times seconds/Joules... hmm.  And a Joule is a Watt-second..... so your expression reduces to (Newtons x seconds)/(Watts x seconds) = Newtons/Watts ..... Newtons per Watt? What you are describing seems to be something like Specific Impulse but not quite. Newtons per Watt? That's some kind of efficiency figure I think.
(Edited... the algebra is confusing this early in the morning....)

 
Quote
As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards

A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on November 25, 2012, 09:42:23 PM
A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.
liar.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on November 26, 2012, 07:44:45 AM
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 on November 26, 2012, 10:37:46 AM
I am involved with several topics on this site and the question always seems to come up:  What is free energy? And: What is overunity?

I know we are all here looking for it but how can we find it if we can't agree on what it is?  To me, I think it is a given that energy can't be created or destroyed.  Having said that, I believe there are some "free energy" deices working right now.  My earth battery is but one, and I know of several others....depending on your definition of "free energy".

My earth batteries generate power with no input from me.  To me, this is "free energy".  The guy with the water wheel living by a river is getting "free energy" to him, and he can power whatever he wants from it.  Windmills, the same thing.
Also solar, etc.

So, my definition of these devices as "free energy" does not mean the power comes from nowhere.  We know where it comes from, and it fits all of the known laws of physics.  But, is this still "free energy"?  I believe it is.

Hans Von Lieven once said that if one were to touch a match to a puddle of crude oil leaking from the ground, it would ignite and produce heat and light, all for the effort of striking the match.  So, these could be seen as both "free energy" and "overunity" by some folks.  Of course it is burning hydrocarbons and this reaction is well known so the energy is not coming from nowhere, but, we do need to define our parameters if we are hoping to find new power sources.

So, my purpose of this topic is to help open a dialog on what the parameters are for that which we all are searching for.  what is "free energy" and what is "overunity?

Please feel free to post any and all ideas on this subject.  Without a clear definition that we all agree upon,  how will we know if we find it or not?  Thank you.

Bill


Let me be as clear as I possibly can. Any device that either generates or converts energy is an under-unity or at best a unity device. There is a logical "battery" unaccounted for, somewhere in the equation, to make the statement of overunity, or COP>1. For instance, if a device is drawing from the zero point field, then the zero point field is the battery, and the device is woefully inefficient if the output is less than an atomic blast of huge proportion. (That is how much energy is supposed to be in that particular battery, and at unity would equal a sudden release of all the stored energy.)


As far as "work", the logic behind the current definition is biased so as to negate the possibility of perpetual motion. However, the actual definition of "work"........, I am not saying this lightly. The word has many different definitions in science, from general physics, electrical, and thermodynamic.


An example from wikipedia under Work (Thermodynamics):


Quote
In [/size]thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics)[/font][/size], [/size]work[/size] performed by a [/size]closed system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system)[/font][/size] is the [/size]energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy)[/font][/size] transferred to another system that is measured by the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system. Essential to the thermodynamic concept of work is that the energy transfer in fictive principle be able to occur at a finite rate without any of it necessarily being dissipated by friction or chemical degradation, which are necessarily dissipative.[/size]


If you find yourself using the terms "open system" or "closed system" you are referring to principles of thermodynamics, and the thermodynamic definition is the usable and accurate definition. Work does not necessarily involve motion, just energy transfer. Where work becomes hard to measure is in the application of constant energy transfer, such as gravity of magnetism, or the proverbial kitchen table. Though energy is being transferred, it is difficult to conceive as work being done.


This is causal of a misapplication of logic. Measuring expected motion (current usage of work) is one of TWO equally important concepts. Motion where there should be motion is the obvious use, but LACK OF MOTION where there should be motion is just as measurable, and just as applicable! (Or for that matter motion where there should not be motion.)


As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


On another subject, your thoughts about "free energy" I find highly logical. "Free energy" is indeed energy which is free (costs nothing) to produce. It is an economic term, and not a scientific term. Many forms of free energy exist, such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, water, etc,. These indeed are all free energy sources.


Free energy only has meaning when limited resources must be used to generate the energy, otherwise the term is nonsensical.


Paul Andrulis

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker on November 26, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill

Yes, exactly.   One has to determine if the force separating the floating magnets is "thrust", or "potential energy", and you are correct about the table but who is to say it isn't true?
There is energy in that table... a very important energy to anyone who wishes to be more than a scattered cloud of random atoms.   

At first glance, the suspended magnet display is an example of potential energy... like a spring.   The two fields seek a state of equilibrium in pattern per magnet.  The interaction attempts to displace this natural state and hence a counter force is sustained until returned to that state (i.e.... pulling a guitar string and holding it for 33 years).  Is this the case with magnetic fields?  I'm not sure.

The magnet does indeed have properties that make one think of it in this way, but also has properties of gravity and electricity.  Is a magnet field a spring trying to return to it's natural state, or is a magnet producing actual "attraction" such as gravity?   If two magnets are "attracted", then the reverse would be "repulsion" or..... "Thrust".   "Thrust", aside from the physics definition, in my book requires "work" even once an equilibrium with the thrusted object is achieved.

If attraction or repulsion are the case, then I would suggest that both require energy and a constant supply of it, and that is the important thing to key on.

This of course is more than semantics in the world of OU.  Which concept you subscribe to, and of course which concept is accurate has a huge bearing on the potential success of many OU projects.

It is the very basis of conceptualizing magnetic OU machine since if the magnets behaves as a spring, there is absolutely no way to arrange any shape or configuration of springs that will obtain continuous and long term motion.

If magnets produce "Thrust" (which I believe they do), then permanent magnet engines are at least possible, and both the magnet....and the table... are doing "work" with the difference being that the table is unable to  do work outside of it's own structure.

This is an important distinction to consider.

All the Best
P.S.  Bill, sorry.  I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I'm not that bright sometimes.

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker on November 26, 2012, 10:50:04 AM

<snip>

As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


<snip)

Paul Andrulis

YES!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 on November 26, 2012, 10:53:13 AM
I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill


Only if using the definition of work from general physics, but in that case you would not have to be concerned with open or closed systems.  :o


If using the definition from thermodynamics, since even at equilibrium energy is being transferred to maintain said equilibrium, which itself affects the physical constraints of the system without the energy transference in the form of friction or heat then yes work is being done at equilibrium.  ;D


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 on November 26, 2012, 05:37:35 PM
I have in the past considered deeply what I am about to share, and maybe it will give pause for consideration.


For something to contain potential energy is equivalent in concept to a woman being potentially pregnant......  ;D


Either she is, or she is not, cannot have it both ways. Equivalently, either real energy exists in a system, or it does not, so how can it be logically stated as potential?  ???


Example:


Consider a simple circuit containing just a battery and a light bulb connected to said battery. Laying beside the first battery is a second battery, unconnected to the circuit in any way. Do we then count the battery as energy in the system?


So called "potential energy" only holds the designation of "potential" due to the fact it is not actively connected to the system being considered, like a battery with no leads attached to the circuit.


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 (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

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: The Observer 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
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker 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 (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
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker 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?

:)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 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





Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker 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
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 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
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker 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 :)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 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]
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 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.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 01, 2012, 07:58:49 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.

Dear friend,its not overunity.
Nuclear energy is a form of highly compressed solar energy.Photons from sun continuously compresses atomic particles which are like strings of energy.This compression as well as accelerated photons are stored in atoms as nuclear energy in massive quantity and this is what keeps electrons rotating around the nucleus.
The motion of electrons in atoms is neither perpetual either.
Nuclear explosion is a type of Spontanious chemical reaction.

It's just like explosion of fossil gas when mixes with air when excited with spark of electrons emerging from spark plug.You should study nuclear physics in detail to understand this.

It takes comparatively very little energy (spark from spark plug) to unlock the hidden nuclear form of solar energy and that's how you can run an IC engine.

Well the study of nuclear energy teaches to mankind that there's abundant amount of solar energy on earth which is absorbed by the materials but we have not yet developed a single highly efficient way to exploit this energy for peaceful applications.

Humans have succeded in exploiting ample amounts of nuclear or solar energy for destruction only but its very sad that humans have not yet found safe and ecofriendly way yet to exploit nuclear energy for peaceful applications without generating extremly  harmful nuclear waste products generated from nuclear fission plants.

The "solar energy to electricity" conversion efficiency of today's most efficient solar cells is not even 30 percent .And as of now,generally most efficient solar cells of the world are only made in labs.Commercial grade solar cells have not even 20 percent "solar energy to electricity" conversion efficiency.

The conclusion is we have abundant freely available energy in this world but we don't know how to use it efficiently.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 01, 2012, 08:44:32 AM
Dear friend,its not overunity.

Yes, it is over-unity and I am not your friend.

Quote
Nuclear energy is a form of highly compressed solar energy.

to be more precise matter is entangled Gamma-Rays and some Neutrinos.

Quote
Photons from sun continuously compresses atomic particles which are like strings of energy.

only high energy photons(1.4MeV) or higher can be entangled but it requires more than just high energy photons to do so it also requires electron Neutrino's to entangle the reaction.

Quote
This compression as well as accelerated photons are stored in atoms as nuclear energy in massive quantity and this is what keeps electrons rotating around the nucleus.

it is not compression, it is entanglement.  electrons entangled to an atom do not move unless extra energy is added to the system, you adhere to much to classical mechanics and not enough about quantum QED.

Quote
The motion of electrons in atoms is neither perpetual either.

so far this is the only thing I agree with you on.

Quote
Nuclear explosion is a type of Spontanious chemical reaction.

it is not a chemical reaction,  it is a nuclear reaction of spontaneous fission by bombardment of Neutrons which can also allow for fusion reaction via nuclear compression.

Quote
It's just like explosion of fossil gas when mixes with air when excited with spark plug.You should study nuclear physics in detail to understand this.

who ever told you this needs to be slapped, you may need to slap yourself perhaps?

Quote
It takes comparatively very little energy to unlock the hidden nuclear form of solar energy and that's how you can run an IC engine.

it doesn't work that way.

I have did some work with radio-isotopes and radiation that is also included on this forum. read some, I am not a newbie here like you are now.

Nuclear and radioisotopes is one of my favorite hobbies.

have a good day!!!
Jerry 8)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 01, 2012, 08:49:25 AM
Good comments but you might have heard of string theory wherein every single atomic particle is a vibrating string of energy under compression.

Have a good day.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on December 01, 2012, 08:52:15 AM
Good comments but you might have heard of string theory wherein every single atomic particle is a vibrating string of energy under compression.

not compression, it is entanglement that binds the string.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 01, 2012, 08:57:51 AM
Ok then what's the machenism which creates overunity in nuclear reaction.
I am pursuing final year Machenical Enginiering and as you know here syllabus is highly limited in nuclear physics (unlike pure physics courses),unless you take any "nuclear enginiering" elective subject as a option,even though I have interest.So I may not understand in detail atleast as of now.I am reading more books to understand concepts better.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 09:26:25 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.
a nuclear explosion isn't overunity...  ::) don't be asinine.

there is, of course, a tremendous amount of energy stored in an atom, but there is nothing 'overunity' about it.  similarly, there is a tremendous amount of energy at niagara falls, far more than it took to harness, yet the falls are obviously not 'overunity'... 
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: evolvingape on December 02, 2012, 11:50:36 AM
a nuclear explosion isn't overunity...

Correct.

A nuclear explosion is actually massive Coefficient of Performance releasing large amounts of energy previously stored by the environment in heavy elements created during a Supernova. This energy is released by a compression shockwave from the trigger explosion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

http://www.universetoday.com/70646/astronomy-without-a-telescope-alchemy-by-supernova/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_nucleosynthesis

The LFV is designed along the same principle with processing from liquid water to hydrogen and oxygen gas, when triggered thermolysis and fluid flow shaping of the resultant shockwave kick up the energy to a plasma state. The processing cost + the trigger cost are the input energy, the resultant force from the plasma expansion and the shockwave drives the output energy process.

If it produces more energy out, than in, is it overunity or is it COP > 1 ? or is it a combination of both ?

That should get you thinking...

Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 07:43:43 PM
If it produces more energy out, than in, is it overunity or is it COP > 1 ? or is it a combination of both ?
it would be COP > 1...

with regards to 'overunity'. this is a made up compound word. what 'unity' means or 'is', was never defined by the originator of the term 'overunity'. if unity is taken to mean what it traditionally means, there can be no such thing as 'overunity'...   similarly, one cannot be 'overdead'...   ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 07:57:21 PM
it would be COP > 1...

with regards to 'overunity'. this is a made up compound word. what 'unity' means or 'is', was never defined by the originator of the term 'overunity'. if unity is taken to mean what it traditionally means, there can be no such thing as 'overunity'...   similarly, one cannot be 'overdead'...   ;)

I personally prefer the term "electrically efficient" instead of COP.  If you can show the electrical input in watts vs. the electrical output in watts, you may be able to show an excess output, if the device has the ability to utilize a free energy source other than the input alone, to combine together in the output measurement.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on December 02, 2012, 08:38:38 PM
If we cannot create or destroy energy the only option we have is to learn to displace it with the smallest input with the greatest effect and collect as much of the return to equilibrium as efficiently as possible.

Much like the ocean we can use the displacement of waves to generate power through an oscillating buoy yet no water is created or destroyed in the process. Replace ocean with the vast sea of energy around us, our devices have to leverage the natural waves without destroying the displacement that make them work. Finding out how to decouple one from the other but use it's displacement synergistically is the challenge.

LOL. Such an oxymoron, device has to be synergistically decoupled. Like Ying and Yang always apart yet always in harmony. :)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 08:47:05 PM
If we cannot create or destroy energy the only option we have is to learn to displace it with the smallest input with the greatest effect and collect as much of the return to equilibrium as efficiently as possible.

Much like the ocean we can use the displacement of waves to generate power through an oscillating buoy yet no water is created or destroyed in the process. Replace ocean with the vast sea of energy around us, our devices have to leverage the natural waves without destroying the displacement that make them work. Finding out how to decouple one from the other but use it's displacement synergistically is the challenge.

LOL. Such an oxymoron, device has to be synergistically decoupled. Like Ying and Yang always apart yet always in harmony. :)

Exactly right.But energy such as gravitational energy which costs nothing to pocket is already in large Quantities,which means free to pocket and eco-friendly energy is possible.
Be assured that real Gravity powered Devices are not perpetual Motion Machines.
For more information visit few these of my articles on my Blog:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=151

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=152

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=153

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog_entry.php?e=155

Thanks!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 09:07:29 PM
guys...   could we PLEASE stay on topic here?

as the title of this thread so astutely observes, we need a definition... not a dissertation on ying/yang or a bunch of bessler links.

from ol' webster...
Definition of UNITY
1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness
   b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation <in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity> (2) : identity element

2 a : a condition of harmony : accord
   b : continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

3 a : the quality or state of being made one : unification
   b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

4: a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

5: any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day

6 capitalized : a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity


now, i think it is clear from webster's definition that the use of the word 'unity' in over-unity really makes no sense whatsoever.

i think the fundamental question here is, are we going to come to a consensus about the definition or would a new term (either an already existing term or one freshly coined) be better suited?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 02, 2012, 09:30:53 PM
guys...   could we PLEASE stay on topic here?

Free energy cannot be defined with conjunction with Mysterious overunity human mind generated extra energy.The links to bessler wheels website is one of the real key to unlock some secrets of real free energy devices like Gravity engines.
Unless you read them in detail,you will not recognise the importance of the links I posted.

Free energy does not means its created simply.Free energy is energy from nature,free to pocket.Solar energy is one such example.

It explains how this can be used practically to make a valid free energy device,A gravity engine:

"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

We guys are on the topic,not Off Topic!!!!!
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 09:43:29 PM
Free energy cannot be defined with conjunction with Mysterious overunity human mind generated extra energy.The links to bessler wheels website is one of the real key to unlock some secrets of real free energy devices like Gravity engines.
Unless you read them in detail,you will not recognise the importance of the links I posted.

Free energy does not means its created simply.Free energy is energy from nature,free to pocket.Solar energy is one such example.

It explains how this can be used practically to make a valid free energy device,A gravity engine:

"There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward."

We guys are on the topic,not Off Topic!!!!!
bullshit! a bunch of bessler links do NOTHING to forward an agreeable definition of the word 'overunity'.

we get it that you are obsessed with bessler, we have seen you spamming those very same links wherever you can on this forum...  ::)

you are not on topic unless you are helping present an agreeable definition. and posting links to your favorite obsession does NOTHING to forward a definition. you do know what a dictionary is do you not? then you should understand what a definition is...  ::)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 10:08:47 PM
I have always understood the term "overunity" to mean:  over=above and unity=one or a whole, 100%.  The main problem today with any device called overunity in my opinion, is that the term has been demonized by those who wish to put the idea down, to the point that it has become a detrimental term to be associated with.  That's why most avoid the term overunity with their devices.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: hoptoad on December 02, 2012, 10:13:18 PM
snip...
similarly, one cannot be 'overdead'...   ;)
Even though, that's how I often feel on some Monday Mornings!
Cheers
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 10:16:36 PM
I have always understood the term "overunity" to mean:  over=above and unity=one or a whole, 100%.
and the impossibility of the word is then obvious.  as much as the coach wants you to give '110%'...  you cannot. you can only give him 100% or less than, but not more than.

that is my point. the word 'overunity' itself is nonsensical based upon ANY of the agreed upon definitions of 'unity'.  thus, either a new and more appropriate word needs to be coined OR a new definition needs to be amended to ol' websters.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 10:24:52 PM
and the impossibility of the word is then obvious.  as much as the coach wants you to give '110%'...  you cannot. you can only give him 100% or less than, but not more than.

that is my point. the word 'overunity' itself is nonsensical based upon ANY of the agreed upon definitions of 'unity'.  thus, either a new and more appropriate word needs to be coined OR a new definition needs to be amended to ol' websters.

But you have to remember, it is not impossible, since you are not performing by yourself.  Therefore, you are not giving more than 100% yourself, it is added to another free energy source that makes the combined output appear as though it is more than the original 100%.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 10:36:47 PM
But you have to remember, it is not impossible, since you are not performing by yourself.  Therefore, you are not giving more than 100% yourself, it is added to another free energy source that makes the combined output appear as though it is more than the original 100%.
oh god...  ::)  here we go again...

can the team give more than 100% ? they are, according to your logic, not "performing by themselves"...  ;)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 10:47:48 PM
oh god...  ::)  here we go again...

can the team give more than 100% ? they are, according to your logic, not "performing by themselves"...  ;)

But they are performing as one, a Whole, 100%.  In this case the whole can perform more than the 100% input that was externally added.  It does omit the extra % added by the free energy source, as measured at the output, since the free energy source is not counted as input or as the whole from the beginning.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 10:54:32 PM
But they are performing as one, a Whole, 100%.
and yet... they cannot give more than 100%. neither as individuals nor as a whole.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 11:08:24 PM
But they are performing as one, a Whole, 100%.  In this case the whole can perform more than the 100% input that was externally added.  It does omit the extra % added by the free energy source, as measured at the output, since the free energy source is not counted as input or as the whole from the beginning.

So in this sense, the whole measured output can exceed 100% of the externally added input (not counting the free energy source, since it is usually conserved until the device operates).
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 11:21:00 PM
So in this sense, the whole measured output can exceed 100% of the externally added input (not counting the free energy source, since it is usually conserved until the device operates).
oh god...  ::) here we go AGAIN...

we ALREADY have terms like COP and such to describe what it is you are trying to say. if you insist upon using the term overunity in the context you are using it in you will need to come up with a cogent definition. so far, you have not.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 02, 2012, 11:28:12 PM
oh god...  ::) here we go AGAIN...

we ALREADY have terms like COP and such to describe what it is you are trying to say. if you insist upon using the term overunity in the context you are using it in you will need to come up with a cogent definition. so far, you have not.

It's good to see you call out to God when you get stressed, but that is another thread... 

Do you have any suggestions, that you can agree with, now that we know what these devices do?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: evolvingape on December 02, 2012, 11:41:14 PM
it would be COP > 1...

with regards to 'overunity'. this is a made up compound word. what 'unity' means or 'is', was never defined by the originator of the term 'overunity'. if unity is taken to mean what it traditionally means, there can be no such thing as 'overunity'...   similarly, one cannot be 'overdead'...   ;)

Correct again!

I will explain why another time, I'm going to bed. I will let you and Liberty duke it out first, it is quite clear to me who understands, and who doesn't.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 02, 2012, 11:54:34 PM
It's good to see you call out to God when you get stressed, but that is another thread... 

Do you have any suggestions, that you can agree with, now that we know what these devices do?
it's not stress... ::) it's frustration. i figured something as nonsensical as 'god' would fit well with your nonsensical definition of 'overunity'.

what devices? and what SPECIFICALLY do they do?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 03, 2012, 12:06:31 AM
Correct again!

I will explain why another time, I'm going to bed. I will let you and Liberty duke it out first, it is quite clear to me who understands, and who doesn't.

I understand and agree with what you both are referring to.  You can't get 110% out of something that can only operate at 100% at most (usually much less).  It depends on your point of view as to how you understand the term overunity.  Yours is one way.  Mine is another.  However I use "electrical efficiency" because that is the desired unit that I choose to use for measurement.  I see you are looking for a "perfectionist" definition that is absolute.  COP, if I understand it correctly, is too broad of a term in my view, as used with air conditioning in comparison, it may be comparing apples with oranges.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Liberty on December 03, 2012, 12:31:20 AM
it's not stress... ::) it's frustration. i figured something as nonsensical as 'god' would fit well with your nonsensical definition of 'overunity'.

what devices? and what SPECIFICALLY do they do?

"what devices? and what SPECIFICALLY do they do?"

This topic would "exceed" the current discussion topic.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 03, 2012, 12:40:29 AM
"what devices? and what SPECIFICALLY do they do?"

This topic would "exceed" the current discussion topic.
then just name one...  ::)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 03, 2012, 12:56:52 AM
I understand and agree with what you both are referring to.  You can't get 110% out of something that can only operate at 100% at most (usually much less).
no, i don't think you do or you wouldn't be arguing what it is that you are arguing...

It depends on your point of view as to how you understand the term overunity.  Yours is one way.  Mine is another.  However I use "electrical efficiency" because that is the desired unit that I choose to use for measurement.
and this is EXACTLY why this thread was created. definitions, especially scientific  (ie:things that are observable and measurable) ones, are NOT dependent upon "point of view". words have definitions so that we are all on the same page when using a word. this is the fundamental basis of language.

I see you are looking for a "perfectionist" definition that is absolute.
wrong. i'm looking for an agreeable definition that suits the purpose and context and isn't open to "interpretation"... this is science, not religion.

COP, if I understand it correctly, is too broad of a term in my view, as used with air conditioning in comparison, it may be comparing apples with oranges.
"as used with air conditioning in comparison" to what exactly?


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 03:43:09 AM
bullshit! a bunch of bessler links do NOTHING to forward an agreeable definition of the word 'overunity'.

we get it that you are obsessed with bessler, we have seen you spamming those very same links wherever you can on this forum...  ::)

you are not on topic unless you are helping present an agreeable definition. and posting links to your favorite obsession does NOTHING to forward a definition. you do know what a dictionary is do you not? then you should understand what a definition is...  ::)

Hello it's not spamming,its self realisation towards real freeeergy Technology.I haven't uncovered the exact concept due to patent reasions,but have fully explained with proofs the analogy of my engine concepts.It took me years of work,many sleepless nights to achieve something workable.

Please don't insult such a selfish less effort and devotion towards spreading the truth to public.

What I am doing is spreading the awareness about real free energy and I am trying to take out all the non-sense thinking from the society about free energy.

Also my experience has proved that free energy suppression is a real thing.

"Free energy is energy available in Nature,which does not cost a single peny except for the device investment."

If you have Commonsense you will tell that nothing can move by itself unless external force is applied.
The society needs to be filtered out from nonsense thoughts like overunity or perpetual Motioin machines.

"Overunity means additional output in a quantity without any equivalent input energy in a conservation equation which leaves the equation unbalanced."A overunity enegine cannot exist in real world.

Please read the technical parts of my blog articles like gravity powered trains,interloped path system in which net gravitational energy is varied continuously as well as my analogy concept.
I support free energy realisation,but in a workable manner.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 03, 2012, 03:58:33 AM
Hello it's not spamming,its self realisation towards real freeeergy Technology.I haven't uncovered the exact concept due to patent reasions,but have fully explained with proofs the analogy of my engine concepts.It took me years of work,many sleepless nights to achieve something workable.

Please don't insult such a selfish less effort and devotion towards spreading the truth to public.

What I am doing is spreading the awareness about real free energy and I am trying to take out all the non-sense thinking from the society about free energy.

Also my experience has proved that free energy suppression is a real thing.

"Free energy is energy available in Nature,which does not cost a single peny except for the device investment."

If you have Commonsense you will tell that nothing can move by itself unless external force is applied.
The society needs to be filtered out from nonsense thoughts like overunity or perpetual Motioin machines.

Please read the technical parts of my blog articles like gravity powered trains,interloped path system in which net gravitational energy is varied continuously as well as my analogy concept.
I support free energy realisation,but in a workable manner.
blah, blah, blah... do you think i was born yesterday?

do you have an actual, physically working bessler wheel?  yes? or no?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 04:03:41 AM
Well,what I am doing is not a necessary a bessler wheel.Its simply a gravity powered engine.In my home succesful experiments have been done to verify the concepts.Actually such a verification was not needed since the concept follows well known and continuously used laws of physics.

Why no technical question to my technical articles on my blogs?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 03, 2012, 04:14:39 AM
Well,what I am doing is not a necessary a bessler wheel.Its simply a gravity powered engine.In my home succesful experiments have been done to verify the concepts.Actually such a verification was not needed since the concept follows well known and continuously used laws of physics.

Why no technical question to my technical articles on my blogs?
so that's a no then on any actual, physical working device

thank you.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 07:05:14 AM
You can't be serious about the concept shown in http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/7850519666/

The amount of energy that could be recovered on the downward run will always be less than amount of energy required to raise the train to the starting position.  As a gravity powered train it would work fine as long as it continues to travel downhill...

I challenge you to produce a coherent explanation otherwise, (or failing that show verifiable experimental evidence that is is so)

Such a system would be in violation of the first laws of thermodynamics and I'm amazed that someone who pupports to be an engineering student could say otherwise.

The amount of energy needed to travel 100 metres downward is more than amount of energy needed to travel 25 or 30 metres upward.
Dont you have a simple observation that the upward distance used here is less than downward distance purposefully.

Your explanation is correct only when amount of distance covered upward = amount of distance covered downward.
The only need is minimising losses and also the downward distance should be atleast 6 times more than upward distance.

Simple logic is Work done = force * displacement.

It's obvious that when commutator supplies energy upwards,displacement is very much lesser than when commutator reverses direction.

Offcoarse,the concept needs a ball type train compartment so that the forces act at a proper centre of mass.One problem I noticed here is this system is only suitable for one compartment.

The reasion why you need 6 times more displacement downwards is because its obvious that you have to regain energy supplied against both the components of gravity as well as account for large losses encurred as well as convert more gravitational energy into usable form of electrical energy.

The actual construction is more complex than simply varrying displacement slope paths.

My real concept is about the Analogy(Analogy is done generally to explain a similar phenomeneon by different example,so that full secret is still maintained untill patent is granted).
The gravity powered train is just a case study suggestion.

I also suggest that let the slopes be curvy.The curvy slopes will allow for more larger displacements in less space with more overall efficiency.

Just make a note that the compartment travels through Varrying potential energy gradients.
Potential energy will remain constant only between two points along a straight height.So many different heights produce a gradient along so long displacement.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 07:46:24 AM

In real life the amount of energy that can be recovered is less, as there are always losses due to friction (ultimately lost as  heat)
Neither I denied this in my Article on Blog.This is just a case study.The real concept is for the other analogy,discussed in other article of the same Blog.Future generators/motors will be technologically highly efficient(atleast 80 percent efficient.)
I am well versed with basic concepts of Entropy.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 09:08:56 AM

As the train descends the longer inclined path the resultant force acting in the direction of motion is less than the force of gravity acting in the vertical direction.  Integrate that lesser force over the longer distance and 'not so magically' you get the same result as if the train had descended vertically.

Sorry,that is not satisfactory explanation.we are putting more gravitational energy input,which is required for downward motion as well as energy recovery.Its the gravitational force that's causing motion as well as presence of fictional lost energy.
Gravitational energy downward has two components which make up resultant.One helps in movement of compartment along height.Other helps in movement of compartment in conjunction with height,along the Horrizontal.Here,Sign convention is not according to regular Cartesian graph.But both gravitational components should be negative.Cartesian sign convention is only for plotting graphs with EASE.
Graphs may not be always analogous to forces.Resultant =( -H )+ (-V) = -(H + V).
Quantitively,its only (H+ V).Negative sign indicates that gravity acts downwards.

If gravity acts only along vertical,how any thing will move horrizontally???
Hence gravity(loops of Gravitons I should say or loops of earth's magneic field I should say) also acts horrizontally.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 10:14:27 AM
Actually, your ludicrous ideas demonstrate that you absolutely clueless about even the most basic concepts of mechanics and thermodynamics.

What do you meant by that Nonsense comment.Aren't you aware that Gravitational field is a Earth's magnetic field.and each magnetic field is a loop starting from one point and ending at other.
Only because of loop of North and South Pole,we have gravity with two components on the slope.

If gravitational field was not a loop,then nothing would have fallen through a slope.Then any object on a slope path would have been there without falling down,because there is a resistance vertically to oppose its falling down.

Take a look at this:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html


See the pic there and you will come to know that gravity is not only unidirectional  (straight).
Better you go back to school and understand that earth's gravity is not only Vertical but its also converging to Horrizontal direction since the nature of earth's magnetic field is looped
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 10:28:56 AM
--Delete please,new comment section created by mistake--
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 10:44:55 AM
Yes,physicst are finding tough job to understand magnetism.But we cannot apply different types of machenics individually as per needed.Science is one and not many.And hence Quantum physicst are aiming towards "The theory of Everything" A single theory that explains everything in universe combining all the relations between all forces of nature.
But it's a Commonsense that when somebody is being pulled in one direction,he cannot move in other direction unless and Untill other external force acts on it.

I think that the concept of earth's magnetic field as loops is correct,but still mysterious.Even particles called "graviton" are mysterious.

I think the concept if Parallel universes is just Rubbish.Its also mysterious.
Have you heard about "parallel Universes" in Quantum Physics.
Quantum physics says there are 11 dimensions and not only 3 plus time.Whats your take on this?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 10:55:38 AM
Lets assume that your theory of horizontal gravity is correct. Would you care to explain why objects on a horizontal surface don't just start moving? I'm rather curious.

interesting.Very good question.
I am not sure but possibly there's some kind of equilibrium between Vertical gravitational force component as well as Horrizontal force component when any object is on a Sraight plane.
I will investigate this in detail.
Also it takes larger time for gravity to bend and reach objects on a table when object is hold straight parrallel to table.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 11:06:28 AM
There are some mysterious places in world,if you have heard of them ,where gravity is unbalanced and where people can walk on walls because of unusual distorted gravitational field.

If you want to know how strange gravity can be,see this:

http://www.ahmedabadmirror.com/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=2012010620120106024723983cc44d8e6

There are few more places in the world where strange effects of gravity are experienced and where researches have came to study.

http://paranormal.about.com/od/earthmysteries/ig/Mystery-Spots-and-Gravity-Hills/

http://www.weirdus.com/states/pennsylvania/roadside_oddities/gravity_hill/index.php

According to scientists,our earth's magnetic field is been disturbed and not 100 percent perfect.Nad hence at few places,we find some mysterious gravity effects.

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/tzLmqWlnBgg
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 11:24:35 AM
How about this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlIpJse-L7I&list=LP7jC9Dyta9go&index=9&feature=plcp

the effect is much stronger...

You're not an engineering student are you...

Yes,final year Mechanical Enginiering student.
I don't disagree that some people may always cheat,by showing strange gravity effects which are just tricks.But there are some places where some thing unusual is happening.

My own Mama(Uncle) has visited a place in USA where he was able to walk on wall of a house.
This strange effects will not occur everywhere.
I wouldn't have believed on these websites,but since few of our own relatives have shared their own experiences at such places,its little bit doubtful to me that there's something wrong in orientation of earth's magnetic field in some places.

It is not necessary that if out of 100 websites,99 websites are misguiding,everyone is misguiding.
That 100th website may be true.We should not be blind by overestimating ourselves.We should investigate everything.

Real thing should not become secret forever just because of thousands of false stories on which you will never like to believe.

Same applies to free energy.Real free energy concepts are been taken as fun and joke only due to the mess or nonsense talks of Perpetual Motion Machines which is killing Persion's ability to think the reality.

Infact I have mainly seen only two types of people at such threads where on one side Someone believes on Perpetual Motion/overunity and on other side,some one is totally against any type of free energy except solar energy or wind energy or tidal energy or nuclear energy.

I have rearely saw a persion like me who talks about real efficient possible free energy technologies.Due to this,such forums are not more than nonsense discussions.

You people are not so skeptical about parallel universe proposed by so many well reputed crazy quantum Physicist,then why you are so skeptical about free to pocket energy technologies.Then I should say that you are also skeptical about wind or solar energy!!!!!which are also free energy technologies.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
I think you didn't read few lines in my articles.

Like.....
"It obeys the principle:
Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward. "

Like....
"The most problematic thing with many people is they do not think how more amount of gravity can be inputted to gravity powered engine ,than that needed to take ball up. 

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation. 

And I am surprised to know that most people at bessler wheels forum who are trying to make Gravity wheel do not consider this.If you do not consider this,you will never be able to make a gravity wheel. "

Like......
"The criteria for resistance system in my engine is:

1) first of all it should be overcommable.
2) it should be present only downwards and not upward.
3) The resistance system should be highly/reasonably efficient(output by input)
4) Amount of overcommable resistance should be reasonably large enough.

If the resistance cannot satisfy these conditions,then it cannot be used in my engine.

The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of grain boundaries)and a point reaches where stress become unbearable(stress is resistance to deformation).As the stress become unbearable,there will be minimum equal and opposite reaction for the weight loading and then the most amount of continuous gravitational energy will be used to overcome this beam resistance/stress and finally the beam breaks.This is analogous to what happens in my engine with the exception of the speed at which all this happens.This is what I learnt in Material Science subject.No good material science Professor in machenical engineering would deny this. 
The speed of this similar process is actually relatively fast,occurs in extended nanoseconds time in my engine whereas in beams it is very low speed [It occurs in beams due to mainly Creep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creep_(deformation)  ] 
"
Like........
"For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy. 

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle, 

Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.
"
Like......
"So,what my engine does is tap the energy required to go against the resistance by the gravity.

Balance energy equation for my concept:

Energy supplied to lift Red ball through commutator controlled motor mode at pivot + gravitational energy required to push the resistance away + frictional losses + other entropy losses = supplied energy recovered though generator mode by commutator control at pivot(red coloured in sketch) + electricity converted from overcoming of resistance+ frictional losses + Back EMF losses + other entropy losses.


It's also right if said theoratically that "energy supplying and recovery process "is just like a or analogous to a catalyst,which is used to let the resistance overcomming process through gravity take place without actually any net change of electrical energy form/format from one form to another form of energy.The energy used to overcome resistance is then converted to electrical energy by a suitable energy conversion system. "

A perpetual Motion machine do not have any balanced Conservation eergy-mass equation.Whereas,my free energy concepts have such balanced equations.

 :) That is why I say"Unlearn The Familiar"
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 12:11:39 PM
Your description of  being able to generate more energy by descending an inclined path than is required to lift the object vertically is in direct violation of the law of conservation of energy and the first law of thermodynamics. By implication such a machine would be a 'perpetual motion device'

Are you really that stupid that you cannot see that?

If you are a final year mechanical engineering student as you claim I would have to seriously question the validity of the institution at which you study.

I never said,I generated or created any energy.Only idiots say this. :)
A real free energy device only converts Energy from nature(example :gravitational energy) into electrical energy.

Most real gravity powered engines should have something analogous to a Catalytic reaction wherein chemicals will be introduced inside a chemical reaction to accelerate chemical reaction and these chemicals are recovered back.You cannot call such a reaction to be perpetual.
Similarly,in gravity engines,electrical energy is given and recover so that more gravity can be used to move any object in a completely differernt manner to convert more gravitational energy into electrical energy.

Illustration:
Is this possible???
:" Gravitational energy form=Electrical energy form + losses"

Technically its correct since according to the well accepted law of conservation of energy :
                       "Energy can neither be created nor it is destroyed, however energy can be                                            converted from one form energy to any other form of energy"

Now the question is how we make this possible.

So here is my answer.

"Little External energy source (similar to catalyst) + gravitational energy + losses quantity 1= recovered electrical energy converted from extra gravitational energy acted on heavy ball(similar to a catalyst) + converted Electrical energy + losses quantity 2"
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 12:28:46 PM
Gravity is a force, not energy. objects attain gravitational potential by virtue of their mass AND position in a gravitational field.
Do you know,how idiotic it sounds as if you are really violating "Energy conservation law"
Force cannot exist without energy.

You cannot generate any force if you donot have any energy.I am hearing this on few websites.Who thought you this?
You have completely misunderstood the concept of potential energy.
It is true that Objects attain gravitational potential in a vertical line by their mass and position.But finally what they achieve is potential energy from Gravity of the earth.

Have you ever thought why potential energy remains allmost constant at a given height in a given single vertical line?
Because of opposite reaction from the table or any holding device which is nullifying the continuous consumption of gravitational energy to zero.
That opposite reaction force is coming from inter nuclear energy of materials of holder or table.

Don't just blindly accept any thing or law.Question everything.
If you don't get answer,analyse yourself.

"Unlearn the familiar" and hence "learn the unfamiliar"
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 12:50:12 PM
gravitational potential energy remains constant because the masses and positions of the objects are not changing.
I would like to proove you wrong here.In machenics,in study of beams,you calculate reaction forces in beam supports,against weight of beams like simply supported or cantilever beams,just to ensure that potential energy of beam remains constant.

Bye for now.I may come back on this forum.I have some important college assignments.
Last comment is silly and illogical.If you are a teacher,you cannot produce great minds like Einstein,Newton,etc.

I suggest you learn from this website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_ocr_pre_2011/explaining_motion/whatareforcesrev2.shtml

Bye for now.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 03, 2012, 03:52:12 PM
Quote
Also it takes larger time for gravity to bend and reach objects on a table when object is hold straight parrallel to table.

I am astonished. Where exactly is Aman Shah a mechanical engineering student? I'd like to take a look at their curriculum and the texts they teach from. Do you suppose they use Beer and Johnston?


   
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 03, 2012, 04:07:40 PM
I am astonished. Where exactly is Aman Shah a mechanical engineering student? I'd like to take a look at their curriculum and the texts they teach from. Do you suppose they use Beer and Johnston?


Mr Tinsel Koala,
You haven't gone properly through the conversation between me and Giana.
We were exploiting the possible cause of two components of gravity along slope with Refernce to loops of earth's magnetic field.Earth's magnetic field is a loop of magnetic forces from north to south.

Enginiering syllabus is limited to using this two components of gravity.
However we were discussing the possible physics behind formation of two components of gravity which has not yet been studied in depth by quantum Physicsist.

Don't comment without properly going through the conversation.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: evolvingape on December 03, 2012, 08:30:46 PM
Part 1

Let us start at the sensible place, the beginning...

http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/talks/NumericalShockWaveCosTalkLong.pdf

I am not going to comment on the last few pages of this thread, it gave me a headache trying to decipher some of the unreferenced nonsense being posted, so I am just going to ignore it.

Enjoy the presentation! Part 2 to follow at some point. Feel free to discuss the implications, ignore the math if you want it does not matter for understanding the concept of Time = 0 and shockwaves.


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 04, 2012, 08:56:31 AM
i hate to interrupt this tragic conversation...  but do you think we could get back on topic and work on a DEFINITION that is agreeable to the majority?
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: TinselKoala on December 04, 2012, 09:14:25 AM
Mr Tinsel Koala,
You haven't gone properly through the conversation between me and Giana.
We were exploiting the possible cause of two components of gravity along slope with Refernce to loops of earth's magnetic field.Earth's magnetic field is a loop of magnetic forces from north to south.

Enginiering syllabus is limited to using this two components of gravity.
However we were discussing the possible physics behind formation of two components of gravity which has not yet been studied in depth by quantum Physicsist.

Don't comment without properly going through the conversation.

Mister Aman Shah
You said this:
Quote
Also it takes larger time for gravity to bend and reach objects on a table when object is hold straight parrallel to table.
And after that you expect me to read through the rest of this thread? You must be kidding. Don't tell me what I can and cannot comment upon, unless you can justify your absurd statements like that with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of your own. It's a wonder you can even stand upright, with all that sideways gravity taking longer to reach you on one side than the other. I simply do not believe that you are actually a real engineering student, because that statement displays such a profound lack of understanding of gravity and just about everything else in the _real_ world of engineering. But go ahead, carry on, I won't bother you any more. Just don't make me go over any bridges you might design.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 04, 2012, 09:59:01 AM
unless you can justify your absurd statements like that with facts, checkable outside references or demonstrations of your own.
more of your hypocrisy... ::)  why should aman have to justify his absurd statements when you won't justify your absurd statements with facts or checkable outside references?
A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.

Q.E.D
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: pauldude000 on December 04, 2012, 02:32:46 PM
guys...   could we PLEASE stay on topic here?

as the title of this thread so astutely observes, we need a definition... not a dissertation on ying/yang or a bunch of bessler links.

from ol' webster...
Definition of UNITY
1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness
   b (1) : a definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation <in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity> (2) : identity element

2 a : a condition of harmony : accord
   b : continuity without deviation or change (as in purpose or action)

3 a : the quality or state of being made one : unification
   b : a combination or ordering of parts in a literary or artistic production that constitutes a whole or promotes an undivided total effect; also : the resulting singleness of effect or symmetry and consistency of style and character

4: a totality of related parts : an entity that is a complex or systematic whole

5: any of three principles of dramatic structure derived by French classicists from Aristotle's Poetics and requiring a play to have a single action represented as occurring in one place and within one day

6 capitalized : a 20th century American religious movement that emphasizes spiritual sources of health and prosperity


now, i think it is clear from webster's definition that the use of the word 'unity' in over-unity really makes no sense whatsoever.

i think the fundamental question here is, are we going to come to a consensus about the definition or would a new term (either an already existing term or one freshly coined) be better suited?


Overunity is actually in reference to COP (Co-efficient Of Performance). When COP<1 it is underunity. When COP=1, it is at unity. When COP>1 it is overunity.


COP is an efficiency formula which measures the ratio of a systems Net Capacity(watts)/Power Input(watts). At unity COP is a balanced system with the Net Capacity equal to the Power Input.  If a system is at overunity, then its Net Capacity is greater than its Power Input.


Here is a link.
http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf (http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: audiomaker on December 04, 2012, 08:20:36 PM
There's a great deal of input in this thread, however the title "We need a definition" might be a good place to start.

First, do we really need a definition?  Why really?

Secondly, if there is actually a need, then should that definition be more precise, or more vague than each person's current version and why?

Ask yourself these two questions, then proceed....

:)
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Pirate88179 on December 05, 2012, 08:06:16 AM
Well folks, I am glad to see the conversations here in an attempt to define what it is that we all appear to be searching for.

Some excellent thoughts have been brought out, and some other off-topic thoughts as well.  This demonstrates exactly why I began this topic.  There are a lot of really smart, educated folks here and yet, agreement on what the "Holy"Grail" of energy research would be seems problematic to define.

It goes back to my earlier thoughts of....how will we know if we have discovered "it" if we do not know what "it" is and can agree?  Part of it might just be semantics I am sure....but....I believe it runs deeper than that.  I believe we need a fundamental term that fully describes what we seek.  Then, we need to clearly define what this term means, and, does not mean.  Easier said than done to be sure. 

If "Overunity" is not the term, what is?  Or, should we re-define "Overunity" to mean something other than the Webster's definition?  Customize it to suit our own needs? (This has been done many times in the computer industry...mouse is but one example.)

I hope we can continue this important conversation and I urge everyone to be respectful please.  This is important stuff.

Thanks,

Bill
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 05, 2012, 08:34:19 AM
Bill,

As I alluded to above, the first thing all have to agree on is the separation of "Renewable Energy"systems, from "extra" energy by other means.

I strongly suggest keeping renewable energy systems out of the discussion, because this is known and proven technology, and it comes from sources that are tangible. So the answer to your question about your earth battery; can you put your finger on the source of extra energy? If so, then that is energy from known physical processes, and in this case comes directly from the earth. I don't know much about the earth battery, but do I assume correctly that it also renews itself?

I believe the other issue you are asking about, having now separated renewable energy systems from overunity/free energy systems, is how does one know when or if they've achieved "it"?

In my own mind this is fairly clear, but having observed and taken part in this forum for quite some time, I'd have to say it's not so obvious for many. There are a lot of good experimenters here, some with extraordinary skills, but by and large, it is a learning process through which eyes are opened and lessons are learned with a few "false alarms" along the way.

A protocol for if (the big one), when, and how to post OU claims would be fairly straightforward (not necessarily easy or quick) to produce, but unless asked to do so, I would not volunteer my time because I have seen good documents such as this would be, go largely unheeded by most even though obvious effort went into it.

.99

Bullshit.
Gravity powered engine technology is nothing more than Renewable free energy technology.

We don't have a single highly efficient ,portable,compact,commercial,renewable energy system and that is making a problem.

According to my own experience on science forums,Free energy Suppresion is however true for efficient renewable energy technologies.
Overunity does not exist.However,Gravity powered engines (Example :Gravity wheels)may exist in future which I am not at all denying.

Nothing can move on its own,neither any Bessler wheel would produce any motion because of its special constructional feature (this is being suggested in bessler wheel community).

Today's most efficient experimental solar cell is only 30 percent efficient.
Solar energy is neither concentrated either.
Wind energy and tidal energy system needs lots of land space,are expensive and does not have efficiency of more than 30 percent.

We need to really take out wraps from suppressed by government and people"highly efficient compact portable low cost renewable free energy"systems.

Gravity powered systems can be made with concepts of overcommable resistances or Potential energy gradients,both of which I have already discussed in my blog articles if you have went through them.

Still you want to waste your time and continue nonsense defining overunity against renewable energy,I will not disturb you.
Good luck!

Or else try building up something practical using my concepts of Overcommable resistance or Varrying potential gradient.

Let us try to figure out a practical gravity engine system:
Let us take a analogous example for this:

If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy. 

Net energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle, 
Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.

The concept is based on "Overcommable resistance" where 2X -X is energy needed to displace Overcommable resistance(additional powder bulk).

I have got a concept to use this idea or analogy which is under patenting.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Aman Shah on December 05, 2012, 01:51:50 PM
It won't work and I'm prepared to wager an amount you care to name against this being possible.

You do not understand the basic principles of the conservation of  mass , energy  and momentum or you would realise how ridiculous your proposals are.

Or I should say,you don't understand simple logic of physics.You are not eligible to be a part of this forum.
Neither you have a Commonsense that you need more energy to displace more mass and less energy to displace less mass.

If readers here are not understating the above example,
Please see this Flickr webpage as well as read the explanation below the attached image for different example for the same concept:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6927929850/

Better go and teach conventional knowledge of old age to some slum area students.They will easily accept your knowledge without questioning or thinking how logical your lessons are.People who do not want to do something extraordinary in life do not think logically and accept anything without questioning.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Mr Summitville on October 01, 2014, 08:50:45 PM

Overunity is actually in reference to COP (Co-efficient Of Performance). When COP<1 it is underunity. When COP=1, it is at unity. When COP>1 it is overunity.


COP is an efficiency formula which measures the ratio of a systems Net Capacity(watts)/Power Input(watts). At unity COP is a balanced system with the Net Capacity equal to the Power Input.  If a system is at overunity, then its Net Capacity is greater than its Power Input.


Here is a link.
http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf (http://www.usair-eng.com/pdfs/efficiency-definitions.pdf)


Any consensus here that "Over-Unity" should be defined as "COP" and not as "Efficiency" ?


Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: Vinyasi on November 29, 2017, 03:22:24 PM
"We need a definition" ---> Energy plus Intelligence yields Command of Nature.
It is up to us to decide the outcome. Do we want that energy to dissipate or increase? We get to decide which way it will go -- not subject to anyone's else's policy.

I think Joseph Newman says it simply when he makes an analogy between shorting out a battery using a short piece of wire versus a very long piece which has been wound up into a coil. The longer piece of wire is also heavier gauge and can be several miles long.

The shorter wire will heat up, and the battery will heat up or explode, and the amp hours on the battery will quickly dissipate to becoming a dead battery.

Meanwhile, the longer piece of massively coiled heavy gauge wire will not draw much amperage from the battery. The battery will get recharged by the voltage gain in this coil if the commutator is constructed properly.

Phase One: 50% duty cycle - Charge the coil.
Phase Two: 30% duty cycle - Rest.
Phase Three: 20% duty cycle - Self-short the coil between its two ends and disconnected from the battery. Do not ever short the coil to ground. Allow it to build up voltage (which should become greater than the battery). And, BTW, the battery is a pack of small batteries (such as 9 volt) strung in series supplying a few hundred volts, but very little amps, to the coil.

This coil will produce a very large magnetic field unlike the short piece of wire creating hardly any field at all.

So, where does the extra energy come if not from the materials of construction plus wave mechanics?

Certainly not from the battery, alone.

In fact, the battery serves merely as a catalyst to release energy in each case.

But it is their geometry of construction which dictates how energy will be released and from where will it be released in each case making each example quite different in outcome.

I spent a lot of money purchasing a hard copy of Newman's eighth edition of his Energy Machine book through Amazon. It has been well worth browsing through. I like holding books in my hands.

But it's also good to have available a PDF scanned version that's free and which does not require a credit card to authorize its download. To that end, I managed to upload a scanned copy of the fourth edition to archive dot org...
http://is.gd/new4th

I doubt anyone working as a physicist or electrical engineer spends much of their attention span thinking about the wave mechanics inherent in every single circuit which they design.

Yet, wave mechanics covers one-half of electrodynamics shared equally in importance by the energy mass relation of E = M x C-squared. We're so monotheistic here in the West when it comes to our ideologies of electrical theory. We have a lot to gain by applying a more Eastern approach by adding to, not subtracting from, our theory the additional insight of the Tao.

If the Yang of the Tao represents our insistence that all energy IN much equal all energy OUT, then the stuff which appears seemingly from out of nowhere in between IN and OUT must be invoking the Yin aspect of the Tao, namely: Intelligence.

It's not smart to burn up a battery and overheat a short thin piece of wire connecting the two terminals of a battery.

But it's very smart to use a much longer piece of heavy wire which is also coiled to further maximize its magnetic output.

That's my theology of electricity: two Gods. One representing Gain and the other representing Loss. Each has no theoretical limit. Only circumstances can limit us.

Take Tesla vaporizing strands of copper wire to see how far he could go at pumping massive quantities of energy into them, because he knew of the theoretical limit to overunity is non-existent. Only the materials of construction, plus their circumstance, and to what degree of Intelligence do we work into our circuitry designs will dictate any limitation to free energy.

One further example is Tesla's Special Generator...
http://is.gd/specgenpgs

I believe that the 'M' coils are equivalent to Joseph Newman's massive coils.

But Tesla goes further by adding lots of iron -- tons of it according to William Lyne in chapter 8 of his book, Pentagon Aliens -- to enhance the efficiency of his device by magnetically coupling the hull of a Nazi era Electro U Boat to the iron cores of those 'M' coils. And Thomas Commerford Martin quotes Tesla as saying (during the 1893 demonstration cited in his text linked, above) that the period of reciprocation of his device is very important -- in other words, non-varying. Probably serves to enhance resonance and further add to energy gain?

And researchers attempting to theorize how the Testatika device operates have speculated that the horseshoe magnets up front surround a multilayered electret sandwiched between the two feet  of each horseshoe electromagnet. I believe this is analogous to the 'H' coils in Tesla's Special Generator. And since I further speculate that the rods around which these 'H' coils are wound are made of solid aluminum, the open speculation floating around online may be true that the alternate name for this generator is a Tri-Metal Generator composed of: copper, aluminum and iron.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: profitis on November 29, 2017, 09:08:57 PM
"We get to decide
which way it will go <-- not subject to anyone's else's
policy."

So True
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: jhewitt03041976@gmail.com on December 01, 2017, 06:16:05 PM
Ok, I've run into several situations were all too many people from various areas of energy research get put off and/or confused by the term "Overunity", in business, scientific, engineering AND even our own back yards of "Overunity-philes"  ;)
I spoke in front of a group of pre-college students some 19 years back about this very thing "What Overunity REALLY is !!!", I started with a short presentation before the Q&A...

Overunity: A Frankenstien Experiment?

"Overunity", a word that by popular definition both inspires and reviles at the same time, those who want to create devices that produce greater amounts of energy than they use to produce that output, on the other side, there are those who believe that because of established "Laws of Thermodynamics", such devices and technology are fantastic machinations of sci-fi fans and ignorant Tesla zealots.

"Overunity" is such a misunderstood word, often misunderstood by both the believers AND disbelievers alike, as are the commonly used first lines of the three "Laws of Thermodynamics", these phrases are so quickly and blindly thrown around like weapons and/or shields against those who are looking to research and/or produce prototypes of overunity technology, most of the time used to dissuade the interested as well as an excuse to not even look into the ideas presented or refute presented ideas, data and even prototypes, a very unfortunate practice in the scientific community.

"Overunity" by popular misunderstood definition is "procedures and/or technology to produce energy greater than the amount of work and energy put into the process of the production. the "established" fact is, it IS impossible to create or destroy energy, energy can only be changed from one type to another, however, the true intention of the objective of overunity procedures and technology is to convert efficiently one or more sources of potential, stored or direct energy for use as a singular source of energy, "efficiency" is what "Overunity" is about, a word/phrase that should be changed to an acronym such as "S.E.E.C.S." or "Super Efficient Energy Conversion Systems" or something more creative, point being is that it's a very misleading word/phrase and is the first step in problematic stereotypes that hinder the progress of overunity procedures and technologies.

"Overunity" as it is intended actually exists this day, solar power...the amount of work the panels use to convert to usable energy is almost nothing, yet it is a common and popular technology, as it gains popularity, research is inspired to increase efficiency, reduce size and lower costs. hydro and wind power, sources of energy used for THOUSANDS of years in the production of food and more modern sources of electrical energy, but requires very little energy in the conversion process, even nuclear power, it requires a fuel source (which is just a source of potential energy) and an outside source of energy to start the system, but very efficiently converts that to heat, which is used to heat water to steam, that passes through a turbine, connected to giant magnet and coil generators, which provide energy for many states, the fact is, "overunity" as intended is very real and those quirky ideas that some inspired souls create are your possible self charging cellphone battery in the next iPhone 12, or your new 2019 Ford E-Focus electric, self sustaining, your house generator, ect. it's all closer than people want to admit, such as electro-magnetic, RF recovery systems, passive kinetic conversion and many other theorized and even technologies that have proven the possibility of larger and more efficient future versions that can not only attain equal recovery but greater  recovery than used to produce the results.

"free energy" is free sourced, but still costs money for the equipment, time and maintenance to convert that free source into energy, "Overunity" put as SIMPLY as it can be is about maximizing conversion efficiency "S.E.E.C.S."

doesn't matter the name or acronym used, any name more accurate to the intended effect and less suggestive is better than "Over" & "Unity"..."More than Equal", "Creating More from Less". those of us who understand the movement, that term is fine....but it's not about those of us who understand, it's about our ability to sell the ideas and designs and products to those who DON'T understand that is important for us to find support for research and development from a world that thinks we are Star Wars/Star Trek techno-fantasy geeks trying to hunt down and kill "The White Whale", since we can't go into the world trying to get help for our causes, by starting EVERY presentation with "Let me start by saying what the REAL, INTENDED meaning of overunity is.....", the word needs to be changed PERIOD when used in the outside world, a word and/or anagram that explains it clearly, quickly and simply...

if someone can come up with a more clear, concise and simpler definition than "Super Efficient Energy Conversion" (S.E.E.C.), please, God do it.

As much as we want to think of ourselves as being above appearances in modern society, the world is NOT, it is how something is first presented that can make or break a sale, and even though a potential investor in your research may let you complete your 10 minute PowerPoint presentation, they have made up their mind before you even completed your first sentence... "A revolutionary device that creates power and/or beyond self-sustaining"
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: D.R.Jackson on February 13, 2018, 05:25:32 PM
I would have to comment that even with an over unity scenario, all energy has to come from somewhere.  It then becomes a matter of better understanding where there is energy to be tapped into and applied in an as of yet un-conceived of way, such that with the application of power to something, it triggers a processes that results in releasing this energy elsewhere in a system for use in the process.  In the end result the addition of this energy that is released is added to the input power to result in what appears to be a high level of output power.

In experiments that seem to work for me I realize that regardless of what people perceive to be the case, the reality still is that you can not get more energy out of a system than that which is in it, notice I did not say that which is being put into it, since there is other energy sometimes within the thing that external power is being applied to, hence it is then a matter of the sum of all energies in the system. E+1+2 etc.

http://overunity.com/17603/a-half-baked-idea-re-envisioned/msg516487/
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: mrwayne on February 14, 2018, 03:31:25 PM
Hello Dr Jackson,


Years ago, i was faced with the issue of defining Over-unity, I might be able to add insight to the discussion.


Each time I see statements with 'presuming energy can not be created or destroyed' I am dismayed at how that old belief limits the creativity and advancement of physics.


"Creation of energy" is not the only scope/answer that physics can understand, measure, repeat and replicate.


Creation as the only "option" limits the evaluation and innovators directing those to seek a "gain"... which is illogical.


10-10=3 is an obvious error, and no matter how you view the problem, you will not find the source of the 3..   


The single minded focus on "defining available energy from a closed system" as being "over-unity" is a self looping error in evaluation.


If one presumes that "energy must be created" than the only option currently available in knowledge of academia is 10-10=3 (It is a logical conclusion based on the limited information).   


Over unity is not the only option to generating energy, and the presumption that it is the only option is a serious 'lacking' of the current physics base of knowledge.


Generating "work" from a closed system requires one thing only - that a process is designed so that "opposite and equal" process is intentionally violated - or to be redundant - the process must not be designed as a conservation of work process.


Now the physics to do this come in two choices -  one which is false 10-10=3 (Gain), and the correct method is 10-7=3 (remainder).


I am not using the term energy - because energy is not a process:
"energy" - is certainly well understood in the laws of thermal dynamics, COE, and can not be created or destroyed.


Work from a closed system is not the same as energy from a closed system - the work available certainly has a energy "value" which can be used to quantify the work.


Why is work not the same thing? Work values can be altered without the alteration being attributed to loss and altered in reference to the 'relative reference planes'.


My Lab has successfully generated work available from many closed systems since 2008, which was relatively easy - the most challenging issue faced is dealing with those that can not mentally differentiate the limitations which apply to energy, and the limitations that apply to work.


"Work" as it is evaluated in physics appears to be a mirror to Energy (with equal limitations), yet work is conditional to the "reference plane" of the process - the teaching that the work required to lift a rock is the same as the work which can be preformed when dropping the rock has an underlying assumption that the relativity of the reference plan has not been altered.


In that case the 'driver' of the value of the work is relative to the value of the gravity (affecting the mass), and the underlying assumption is that gravity will remain constant in the process, the distance will remain the same.

When Work is performed, and the relative references within the process remains the same, the work is logically confined to the same physics principles that apply to energy.

The assumption that mass, distance, time, and gravity are 'fixed in a process' demonstrates that the knowledge of how to cause the alterations is not widely known, or included in the education system.


I will acknowledge that alterations of the relative reference planes in a process are not altered in nature, making it an observation that must be intentionally demonstrated - making its discovery, experiencing it and understanding it by most highly unlikely.


To add to the observation complexity; An altered process does not always 'present' as a physical alteration, but rather as a virtual "effect" and can only be realized when comparing to a standard reference plane [size=78%](the effect does not occur without intentional design). [/size]


In my company's closed looped - work producing systems, the alteration of time, distance, or mass or gravity can only be recognized when the process is compared to a relative reference plane. 
The knowledge of comparison is the key to the observation. 


Our first experiment demonstrated in 2008 showed that the same work could be performed with different inputs (with losses being equal). Those on the outside looked in vain for a gain which does not exist), we combined the two processes which resulted in available work, and then researched until we understood where the work was coming from. We have available work from a process that dos not have a single energy gain.   


That part is hard to understand - so i will try to make it clearer - you can not find a single function within our work generating systems that violates any known physics law - no gain can be measured in any single part of the process.


What you will find is that the total work produced is more than the cost to reset the systems: no gain, but a 'remainder' each cycle of the process. 10-7=3


The "7" is the unique part, the reset of the process was reduced by 30%(in that very first model), it was reduced do to the "relative reference planes of the operation were altered" by alternating between concentrated and un-concentrated relationships to gravity, which created a differential physical value between directions.


Everyone, included our own engineers looked feverishly for a gain... finally we realized we needed to include a comparative to the reference of a standard process - the simple and clear reason our systems had work available was the 10-7=3 (We wasted two years trying to find the "gain" in order to satisfy the physicists -which was the only answer they would accept at that time).


The difference between a "gain" and a "remainder" is critical in understanding how work can in fact be  generated from a closed system; designing for a remainder (is reducing the reset cost).

Reducing the reset cost results in a remainder - contrast that reality with the false idea that a gain is required.

Designing for a remainder may appear on the surface to be the same violation of "over-unity' and without the knowledge of how to alter the relative reference plane on only one direction of the process; I would expect any good physicist to rebuke without knowledge.


It is the rebuke without knowledge that is the error, not altered reference planes.


So if you want to define what appears to be over-unity on a working system - looking for a gain is a waste of time, determining why a remainder 'may be the cause" requires a deeper look, and require advanced training - not currently taught in any academia. 


To help others - determine the standard amount of energy to perform work and then compare that to each step of the system, you will not find any process that has in increase over the standard, and if you find you have a process that has a cost less than the standard in it - research the cause of the altered reference and amplify it in order to increase the differential. 


If you think you have found an altered reference - combining it with a standard process and capture the differential - you will have a loss in one direction (consumption of energy) and a remainder in the other direction (generation) - decide which you need.


Hope that helps future inventors.


MrWayne


     
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: mondrasek on February 17, 2018, 01:44:23 AM


Hello Wayne,

It has been a while since you last posted here.  I think the last time was when Mark E. passed...  What a sad and unexpected event that was for those of us who he was willing to try and assist.

Thank you for the lengthy and descriptive post.  It obviously took quite a bit of your time and effort!  I enjoyed reading it.  Even though I don't fully understand it.  But as you say, most will not, right?

I am still very interested to better understand your Energy systems.  I have tried several times and have always done so from the classical Engineering/Physics perspective that starts with the real world observation that ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.

Unfortunately, if I do the math using the equations that define the universe based on that observation, I always get results that say what you would expect:  That energy cannot be created or destroyed. 

So it is kind of an infinite loop of logic!

Can you help me better to understand what you have learned?  Or perhaps show an actual experiment that displays the physical properties that I have yet to be able to grasp?

Thanks,

M.


 
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: mrwayne on February 19, 2018, 01:56:49 PM

Hello M.


I have not been here for a long while, I do peak in every once and a great while to see if people are beyond Over unity yet, and the article defining the meaning caught my eye because "looking for a gain" is the key error which misdirects inventors.


Looking for a gain is wrapped around the created or destroyed idea..


Utilizing methods (there are several) for ways to reduce the reset cost in a process does results in the desired outcome - free energy - and is mathematically accurate - but it is not Over-unity - and is not creating energy.
[size=78%]
[/size]
It is literally a waste of time to look for a gain in any system.
[size=78%]
[/size]
Looking for a differential value between the "opposite and equal reactions" is the logical approach, presuming a baseline has been established (for the reference).


So imagine you had a "Mechanical standard for work" - in these conditions - this amount of work can be preformed with this standard - then you take that standard with you to each observation, and you compared the work performed in each step of the inventors contraption.


You would never find a single step of the process that would exceed the standard (at that location), but you may find less work performed (without loss being the difference).


That less work can result in a remainder when combined with a standard system (presuming the differential is greater than the systems losses).


The difficulty without a standard is that a "Remainder" looks exactly like a "Gain" to the observer who does not have a standard to compare.


+ no measurement will find a gain.......... circular trap.


So if Over Unity is a persons goal, good luck with that, but if energy available is the goal - then look for unequal cost to perform work - the result of work available is a physics requirement.


As far as an experiment - with the mind of looking for the same work with different "costs" go back and look at the original discovery of the Travis Effect #5 and see if you can see that the cost to perform the same work is not the same in both systems and then try to apply what I have shared regarding a reduced reset cost observation.


Don't try to find a gain -


Just subtract the energy into both examples - if a difference exists - then you have the premise to the new mathematics - worthy of a Nobel Prize.


The Virtual Mass is the relative reference which is altered - that video will highlight that differences in cost can exist.


As you know - our work after that discovery was on methods to expand the differential.


Using the reduced reset process mentality - we have had great success.


Looking for a gain, in my view - is a distraction that harms innovation.


Wayne












   


 [size=78%] [/size][size=78%] [/size]












 
   






[size=78%]  [/size]
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: sm0ky2 on February 19, 2018, 05:51:36 PM
Regardless of how we choose to define the concept


“Free Energy”, ultimately is the idea that we can provide the energy demands
of our society in a manner which is not economically devastating to our populous.


In a society where 95% of the end-user cost of Everything, can be directly traced to
energy costs. We have a clearly defined problem.


OU/Free Energy is therefore the persuit of a viable solution.
Freeing ourselves from the global energy crisis, equates to prosperity for all.
Title: Re: "Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.
Post by: mrwayne on February 20, 2018, 03:31:44 AM
Regardless of how we choose to define the concept


“Free Energy”, ultimately is the idea that we can provide the energy demands
of our society in a manner which is not economically devastating to our populous.


In a society where 95% of the end-user cost of Everything, can be directly traced to
energy costs. We have a clearly defined problem.


OU/Free Energy is therefore the persuit of a viable solution.
Freeing ourselves from the global energy crisis, equates to prosperity for all.


The root of the problem is the cost of the "resource" and one solution is to eliminate the need for the resource while still supplying the need.


The old pre-posed solution is over-unity
Over Unity - the pursuit and the evaluation ... wastes valuable talent.


The pursuit of "Free Energy" is both a solution and a reality - the issue is with lumping the two together (Over-unity and Free energy), that is the error.


I agree, the desire to solve the energy cost problem is noble.


Solution:


Utilize a resource that is continual, scales to economy, does not consume or convert a resource.


Any system that consumes a resource is just a trade for what we currently have.


The next step to the solution is to "unlock the knowledge needed" - if this web site is a reflection of current research - than the knowledge must be unknown, hidden, does not exist, suppressed or not understood.


This is why I chimed in - the knowledge is known by a few, it is "not understood" by the masses - that's all.


I am one of those that hold that knowledge, and I have been attacked, just like the others, yet knowledge - like an idea can not be destroyed.


I can tell you that the key to our success happened when we were able to recognize that the important knowledge that "supplies the real solution to the real problem" is not Over-unity, and in fact the scope of over-unity turns both the skeptic and inventor in the wrong direction.


It s almost criminal - the effort to find Over-unity was spent in futility all while the real solution is to simple create or find equal output processes that do not have the same energy foot print - and combine them in a process.


To be clear: My suggestion (from years of working with working Free energy systems) is that having over- unity and free energy in the same light of a conversation is very misleading and will deter from the solution to the problem.


A definition that is actually possible - will help innovation and skeptics.


MrWayne