Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83854
  • *Latest: zacorbul

  • *Total Posts: 521935
  • *Total Topics: 15552
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 12
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible  (Read 55644 times)

Offline Tito L. Oracion

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2203
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2009, 12:26:58 PM »
hi newsflash take a look at this

how can you explain this?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0


God Bless
otits

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #75 on: February 01, 2009, 12:26:58 PM »

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #76 on: February 01, 2009, 01:35:48 PM »
hi newsflash take a look at this

how can you explain this?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0


God Bless
otits


1st: inertia  ;D and generator-motor behavior;
2nd: fake  ;)

please don't mention the crackpots and sand-builders again, ok? they really don't deserve much attention until they show something that has at least some minimal value. are you one of their followers?!

Offline tinu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 630
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2009, 02:09:46 PM »
"Sound hears much louder"?  I hope English is not your native tongue.
No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?

I challenge your assessment of the guitar example as childish and wrong.
Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.

Since you mentioned child... I will have to bring up another simple example of resonance.

                                Are you familiar with tuning forks?

Question 1... 1 fork a has a natural frequency of 440 H.z      the second a natural frequency of  400 Hz.
 
                           I ring the 440 Hz fork... does the 400 fork ring?   Please answer this because I want to know if you have a clue.

Question 2... 1 fork has a natural frequency of 440 HZ    the second has a natural frequency of 440 Hz

                           I ring the 1st 440 Hz fork... does the second 440 Hz ring?   Please answer this.

Question 3... Provided you got Question 1 and 2 right.

                           How does energy transfer from 1 fork to the other and why does the second fork ring in only 1 instance?

                                                I understand what you think.
                                                You think the end of the string pulls on the body of the guitar causing it to vibrate.
                                                Am I right?

What you don't understand is the nature of waves and nodes.
 The string vibrates most at it's antinode.(the middle of the string) and not at all at it's 2 nodes (the ends of the string)

The energy is passed into the body of the guitar through the air as a wave or vibration.
Then the body of the guitar stores the air vibrations just like the swing I mentioned earlier.
Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.
...

Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!

I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.”. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?!  ;D

Cheers,
Tinu
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 02:58:25 PM by tinu »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2009, 02:09:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Liberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
    • DynamaticMotors
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2009, 04:47:54 PM »
No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?
Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.

Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!

I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.”. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?!  ;D

Cheers,
Tinu

From a reasoning point of view, I do not see that resonance can produce any excess energy or an energy that comes from another source that does not need to be paid back if a load is placed on it.  Therefore, I do not see a source of energy to obtain energy from, with resonance.  It is basically a frequency trap.  A permanent magnet however does produce a magnetic field which is continuous without any known outside source of power being needed for this to continue, even under a load.  The issue for science seems to be that there is not a method known yet to tap into this energy at an overall gain, so it therefore must not be possible until proven otherwise.

I can't think of any other natural thing that continuously produces without external power input, an energy (similar to an electromagnet which requires electrical power input), like a permanent magnet.  It appears to me that the way a permanent magnet internally operates, may be a type of  overunity device.  (Having potential for more power out than directed input energy).  What is needed, is to understand how to tap this potential atomic energy at an overall gain.

Offline Bulbz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 419
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2009, 05:19:30 PM »
It wouldn't. The Universe is and always will be. It has always existed. It was not "created".. Its energy is simply circulated and transferred.

A lot of scientists believe this. And even if you don't, there is also the BIG BANG theory (most common). You know, something that ALREADY EXISTED exploded into a Universe. Hence, there is no original creation, just transfer of matter. The Universe EXPLODED into existence, exploded from something else that already existed.

OVERUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. Free energy is possible, to the point where it's never practically going to run out, because there is such a vast amount of energy in the Universe from which to use.

But energy out of nothing? No. There will always be a source.


Well if energy is simply circulated and transferred, that is overunity !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2009, 05:19:30 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #80 on: February 01, 2009, 05:52:35 PM »
@tinu
Quote
I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

Tinu, your first mistake is believing equations are a substitute for real experiments, if you would have performed real experiments you would understand how nature works. Dampening a node will load the source, resonant compression or expansion of any or all nodes will not. As well resonant action at the fulcrum (the base) of a tuning fork cannot and will not dampen an external  source of oscillation. Place one or one hundred tuning forks against a guitar so that only the base of the tuning fork touches it firmly and pluck a string at the resonant frequency of the tuning fork(s). Here is another "real" experiment I have performed where your calculations fail miserably, attach a small pager motor/vibrator to the end 24" long copper rod of 1/4" diameter. Place the other end of the rod in a heavy holder of some sort such as a vice which will not dampen the oscillations. Attach this holder rigidly to a large resonant object which in my case was a rubber mounted 3/4" thick table top measuring 24" x 96". When the motor/vibrator is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the rod and the rod is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the table top you will see something your calculations could never predict. How can a pager motor/vibrator drawing a few mA at 3v move 5 pound objects across a perfectly level surface? How can a few mA cause steel straps which have their ends corresponding to the nodes of the table jump an inch or more from the surface of the table? How can a few mA cause rotation of a mass around fixed points from linear motion?.Why will sand sprinkled on the table top move and concentrate at the nodes to show you exactly where they are, LOL?.In this case the energy input to the system has no relation to the total work performed as all of these examples above occured simultaneously from a mA source input. If you use a few simple calculations ie--- F=ma,W=FxD, E=1/2mv2 you will find the "work" performed through the motion of the many masses on the table can be hundreds of times greater than the input. Tesla knew this 100 years ago, LOL, and he proved this matter for himself through experiment and calculation.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 06:17:58 PM by allcanadian »

Offline Steven Dufresne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • Non-conventional Energy Experiments
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2009, 06:36:57 PM »
@allcanadian,
Neat experiment you did. Was there a difference in frequency between the pager and all the things going on on the table? i.e. could it be possible that the pager was inserting energy at a high frequency but was being extracted by the things on the table at a low frequency meaning that the pager was inputing small amounts of energy over a comparitively long period of time which was then being extracted in bursts? I don't know the answer. I'm posing a possibility for elimination - or not.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #81 on: February 01, 2009, 06:36:57 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline The Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #82 on: February 01, 2009, 07:30:41 PM »
Tinu my man,

Thanks for your picking up where NewsFlash has left off. (I guess he could be doing something fun this weekend.)
This is a debate that needs to be explored thoroughly.

I am so glad you brought up Q factor.
If you read a previous post, I explain this to NewsFlash to prove that a resonant system stores energy.

To reiterate... Q =2*Pi*(Energy Stored/Energy Dissipated per cycle)

This is the conundrum you need to seriously consider.

Again... Low Q = Low amount of energy stored... High Q = High amount of energy stored,

Now you say...

   
Quote
  " 1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics    may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing."

I say... It's a tuning fork. A high Q is implied when talking about tuning forks !

Then you say...
Quote
     2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.

I say.... How in God's name do you come up with that?

My guess is that you believe all sources of Energy have been discovered and must be paid for with cash.
                                                                                       ... and deduce from that, that the second fork acts like a lever on the 1st.

This, my friend, is not how waves work.
To be more concise... Waves do not act like Levers.

Briefly........... You do not and cannot dampen anything by impinging it's natural frequency upon it !
                        This means when the second 440 Hz Fork rings... it creates a vibrational wave of... hope you know, 440 HZ.
                        When this 440 HZ wave from the second fork reaches the first fork (with a natural frequency of 440 HZ) it can only reinforce it's vibration.

Just to be sure... you don't think this all takes place instantaneously?
To be clear...
     
                        Step 1... the 1st fork is struck... it vibrates at it's natural frequency.
                        Step 2... a wave in the medium of air is created with a frequency of 440 HZ.
                        Step 3... the wave travels at a certain speed (340.29 meters per second) in all directions...
                        Step 4... a small fraction of  that wave encounters the 2nd tuning fork
                        Step 5... because this wave is the natural frequency of the 2nd fork, it stores the wave energy depending on it's Q, and begins to vibrate.
                        Step 6... Refer to Step 3 to see what happens here.
                        Step 7... a small fraction of the wave (440 HZ) leaving the 2nd tuning fork encounters the 1st fork.
                        Step 8... because the wave is the natural frequency of the 1st fork, it stores the wave depending on it's Q, and begins to vibrate.

Please tell me how a wave of an object's natural frequency can dampen the energy it already has?  Steps would be appreciated.

Then you mention....
 
Quote
  "3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. "

The nodes of a guitar string strummed are at the ends of the string.
The antinode is in center of the string.
When the string is strummed... it vibrates at it's 1st and fundamental harmonic.

Yes the first harmonic's wavelength is 2X the length of the string.
   That is because the wave is reflected upon itself... not into the front the guitar as if the string was longer than it appears to the eye.
       
Next...

Quote
Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

You do not get that the vibration is stored in the air.
  That's the point of playing the electric guitar not plugged in.
     It has solid body. There is no forced resonance in an air chamber.
         That is why you can barely hear it.
             It is the reason there is an air chamber in and Acoustic Guitar... not a flat piece of thin wood that would work like you are saying it "wood". lol
           
Lastly,

Quote
I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.”. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?!  ;D

A guitar is an EXAMPLE of Forced Resonance... That is what I am talking about.
                                                                                       That is why I mention the swing in a previous post.
                                                                                       That is why I bring up tuning forks. (also to prove to you that sound energy travels through the air)

This is what I am discussing.

        The fact that in a forced resonant situation where the 2nd object possesses a High Q, energy is stored in the 2nd object.
        The fact that the 2nd object vibrates at an amplitude equal to the energy it is able to store (Q Value).
        The fact that the amplitude of the waves the 2nd object emanates is greater than the amplitude of the wave of the driving or first object.

As it relates to the guitar... the string is the 1st object.... the hollow air filled body of the guitar is the 2nd object.

Well, I think that about wraps it up.

Please keep it going... I will find other ways to explain it if nothing here resonates with you. ;o)

Thank You for Thinking,

                                         The Observer





Offline spinner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2009, 09:47:55 PM »
Nice... Similar threads are a constant, a periodical stuff like day/night exchange. ;)

Yes, "OU" is certainly impossible, if one looks at what physics find out to date. Those damned thermodynamic laws...

It's all about the definition itself (strict rules about the "system confinements", inputs and outputs...), the conservation of energy principle, (bla bla bla....), and the fact that the thing is definitely working (so far, 100%).

"Overunity" term was originally used by the "orthodox scientists", who were discussing different (let's say impossible) scenarios about energy and conversions.  Like when you get out more than "anyone anytime" put in....Thought experiments, coffee chats, etc...
Later, the term was adopted by many experimenters, seeking the Holly Grail of an Energy creation..

Btw, i don't mind if this site is using the "OU" name... For me, it is just a way of search for the new energy sources...

Newsflash & Tinu..are right. Of course, that does not mean that somebody can't overturn this understanding.

Simply, a decent proof is all what is needed.... Not just the theory (they are -mostly- very "cheap")...But a proof of a  concept" is still a little hard task, it seems..?

Luckily, a lot of people here understands that a "similar to OU" behaviour could become possible even with a (currently) unrecognised (new?) energy source....
No problem, just build something which definitely shows an "Overunity". We'll deal with the definitions later... If the "bullet proof" principles will fail, who cares???!

Please, don't mention the "CoP" stuff (this is just a special description of a thermodynamic system with a recognised inputs - not OU..).

Hey, an acoustic resonator is discussed as a case of OU? LOL.... This stuff was understood long ago..?

Like soldiers marching over the bridge, an opera singer breaking a champagne glass,... etc?
An ideal (the one it does not exist) acoustic (or EM,..) resonator should perform like an "Unity" ....
Where  ALL the INPUT ENERGY is converted to an OUTPUT (mechanical motion)?
Look at a pendulum experiments.... Put it in a vacuum chamber, and try the resonance principles.... Different frequencies, but only one which can get you to the unity....
Then, try to get some usefull work out of it.  ?

I admit that some guitar performers have a divine stile, but still....     "OU guitars"?   ;D
Cheers!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #83 on: February 01, 2009, 09:47:55 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Charlie_V

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #84 on: February 02, 2009, 06:02:54 AM »
Quote
Tinu, your first mistake is believing equations are a substitute for real experiments, if you would have performed real experiments you would understand how nature works. Dampening a node will load the source, resonant compression or expansion of any or all nodes will not. As well resonant action at the fulcrum (the base) of a tuning fork cannot and will not dampen an external  source of oscillation. Place one or one hundred tuning forks against a guitar so that only the base of the tuning fork touches it firmly and pluck a string at the resonant frequency of the tuning fork(s). Here is another "real" experiment I have performed where your calculations fail miserably, attach a small pager motor/vibrator to the end 24" long copper rod of 1/4" diameter. Place the other end of the rod in a heavy holder of some sort such as a vice which will not dampen the oscillations. Attach this holder rigidly to a large resonant object which in my case was a rubber mounted 3/4" thick table top measuring 24" x 96". When the motor/vibrator is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the rod and the rod is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the table top you will see something your calculations could never predict. How can a pager motor/vibrator drawing a few mA at 3v move 5 pound objects across a perfectly level surface? How can a few mA cause steel straps which have their ends corresponding to the nodes of the table jump an inch or more from the surface of the table? How can a few mA cause rotation of a mass around fixed points from linear motion?.Why will sand sprinkled on the table top move and concentrate at the nodes to show you exactly where they are, LOL?.In this case the energy input to the system has no relation to the total work performed as all of these examples above occured simultaneously from a mA source input. If you use a few simple calculations ie--- F=ma,W=FxD, E=1/2mv2 you will find the "work" performed through the motion of the many masses on the table can be hundreds of times greater than the input. Tesla knew this 100 years ago, LOL, and he proved this matter for himself through experiment and calculation.
Regards
AC

@ Allcanadian

What you described IS the Tesla system.  Two resonant objects having the same resonant frequency but vastly mismatched impedances (whether electric or acoustic).  The intensity of the vibrations can be made extremely large with such a setup - this is why Tesla coils arc! 

Offline jadaro2600

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #85 on: February 02, 2009, 12:04:23 PM »
I would like to buttress the notion of a tuning fork in the previous examples:

If you have two of these devices, made to be as perfectly identical as modern manufacturing techniques allow, then striking one will most likely have an effect on the other within the realms of the inverse square laws proportional to distance, etc.

Some arguments to OU suggest that if you have a series of evenly spaced tuning forks a radial distance away from a central tuning fork, and you strike this tuning fork, that the sum of the external effects will be greater than the internal effect if the number of the external members exceeds the number need to ....  in other words, if the internal member is effecting an external member where F represents the effects of the internal member and F/12 represents the effects on the external member at distance Q, then having 13 members radially placed at distance Q will demonstrate principles of over unity since the sums of effects on the external members is greater than the internal effect.

Imagine, if you will, a stone-henge of tuning forks, where the internal stone is a tuning fork of equal tune the external tuning forks.  There are other factors involved, such as air density, transference to ground and the tendency to mechanically nullify, but the IDEA of it all, for exemplary purposes, is sound.

[pun intended, 8) ]

Now apply the idea to a series of resonant coils, and you may have yourself a device - remember to think in all three dimensions as well.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #85 on: February 02, 2009, 12:04:23 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Chris31

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #86 on: February 02, 2009, 04:55:04 PM »
Consider a resonance similiar to a playground swing.

A alittle girl is able to swing herself using minimal force, its the timing that she must get right to build the momentum. Once loaded the swing loses its momentum, she will need to start all over again to build the momentum gradually.

So there is no big energy from little energy happening there. Its the gradual build up that increase the amplitude of the swing.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2009, 05:15:40 PM by Chris31 »

Offline The Observer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #87 on: February 04, 2009, 02:08:35 AM »
Greetings Chris,

The Swing is an excellent example of Resonance.
That's why I brought it up 2 or 3 pages ago to illustrate to NewsFlash that energy is stored in a Resonating System.
I hope you can agree with me on that. ;o)

Now the only bridge that needs to be crossed is undertanding more energy is output.

There are 2 ways that the swing loses energy...

    1. The creak / friction of the fulcrum (where the top of the swing connects to the swing set)
         
    2. Air resistance. of the child, swing and chains.

            Now let's begin with the first push.
     
                   The child swings a foot.... there is a small creak at the fulcrum... there is a small amount of wind disturbance.

             Second Push

                     The child swings 2 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.

             3rd Push

                      Hope you know where I'm going with this !
 
              Nth Push... where the Q of the system is reached.... that is, gravity will not let you add any more energy to the system.
 
                      The child swings 10 feet... The creak at the fulcrum is very loud.....There is a lot of wind disturbance.


          Now I hope you will acknowledge that the story begins with........ small push = small creak / little wind disturbance.

                                                                    and the the story ends with........ small push = loud creak / a lot of wind disturbance.

Tell me Please... Please.... Please....
                                                                  How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?

I have silenced quite a few in these last few days with this thread.

Please reply... there is nothing wrong with saying..."Oh, I can see what you are talking about !"

Then we will be on the same team !

Yours Truly,
                     The Observer

Offline jadaro2600

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1254
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #88 on: February 04, 2009, 03:23:02 AM »
How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?

...If you're pushing something off of a cliff, or table top. :)

I can see what you're saying; can you see what I mean though (with regard to a tuning fork expample, revising this, though, there would need to be a number of additions forks in an even number.  I may try this example - replicate it, but tuning forks cost a fortune for their purpose, perhaps i can just make some with an equal symmetry across all of them for cheaper.   all it has to do is resonate, the real question is, will it reflect back to source.)

Swings are a good example too, recall though, that swing is at it's maximum speed at the lowest point of its undulation.  When taking this into account, it may be more usefull to harness that power of the approaches at maximum swing hieght rather than at lowest - the net result would mean less netw back emf generated at height rather than at depth.


Offline Steven Dufresne

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • Non-conventional Energy Experiments
Re: Newsflash: Overunity is impossible
« Reply #89 on: February 04, 2009, 03:29:50 AM »
Tell me Please... Please.... Please....
                                                                  How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?

Please reply... there is nothing wrong with saying..."Oh, I can see what you are talking about !"

I hate to answer this since I'll seem like a naysayer but since I am an active experimenter, I won't worry about my rep.

First push
  The child swings 1 foot.... there is a small creak at the fulcrum... there is a small amount of wind disturbance.
  There is also energy left in this system as is clearly shown by the fact that, if left alone, the swing would
  swing again and again and again, a little less each time until it stops.
Second push
  The child swings 2 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.
  The reason the child swung 2 feet instead of 1 foot is because of the leftover energy from the 1st push.
Third push
  The child swings 3 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.
  The reason the child swung 3 feet instead of 2 foot is because of the leftover energy from the 1st and 2nd pushes.
Nth Push...
  The child swings 10 feet... The creak at the fulcrum is very loud.....There is a lot of wind disturbance.
The reason the Nth small push gave a 10 foot swing, the very loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance is because of the leftover energy from the previous pushes. Though it's impossible to say which leftover energy is from which previous push, it may very well be that by the Nth push none is left from the 1st push, but these are all rough numbers anyway.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org

 

OneLink