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: Merg on June 11, 2010, 02:52:09 AM

After the research and analytical work a new theory has been developed and now Jovan Marjanovic and academician Veljko Milkovic are presenting the theory which says that acting force against moving body will not only accelerate the mass of the body, but also its initial kinetic energy too. The product of initial velocity and additional velocity times the mass would be measurement of extra energy or overunity energy...
Jovan Marjanovic & Veljko Milkovic  Kinetic Energy and Over Unity
The goal of this work is to point out some important facts in formulas for kinetic energy and momentum (quantity of the movement) for moving bodies.
It will be shown that over unity behavior is inherent in movement itself.
In this work the authors will discuss:
 origin of the formulas for linear momentum and kinetic energy,
 principle of adding energy to a moving body as the key for over unity,
 initial velocity in gravitation field,
 the best way of adding energy to the pendulum,
 validity of relativity of classic mechanics inside an inertial frame.
Key words: velocity, kinetic energy, momentum, overunity, pendulum.
The complete paper can be read on the next link (PDF  155KB):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf

Haven't read the paper yet but what you are saying sounds a lot like Tseung's 'lead out' info. He's got a long thread on this forum that is still being updated.

...
The complete paper can be read on the next link (PDF  155KB):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf
As proof of OU, it is stated that:
 when you push a ball with a certain work and a force F, it acquires a velocity v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*vÂ²
 now the ball is rolling, and you repeat the first operation: you push again the ball with same work and same force F, it acquires a velocity 2*v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*2Â²*vÂ²
It is concluded that:
we have only doubled the work and obtained four times the kinetic energy!
This is total nonsense. Speed is relative to a reference frame, and so is the kinetic energy.
Energy is frame dependant.
In order to suppose that the work to accelerate the ball from 0 to v is the same as to accelerate it from v to 2*v, we have to suppose that in the second case, we accelerate the ball from 0 to v in a reference frame already at speed v relative to the first one. Thus we calculated two works of same value but relative to two different frames of reference. To add them is meaningless.
From the initial reference frame, we accelerated the ball from 0 to 2*v, therefore the work we expended is of course 1/2*m*2Â²*vÂ².
The way Marjanovic does physics math is an absurdity not only from relativity viewpoint but also in Newton's mechanics.

Energy is frame dependant.
That's sheer nonsense.

I don't know what that fellow is claiming neither do I have the time right now to get into the details but one thing is clearwhen one says a body of mass m has velocity v that in no way implies the body can be observed from a different frame with the intention to prove that its velocity isn't v. That's such a dishonest twisting of someone's claim that I have no words for it. When someone says a body has velocity v he means it. That is, he is at rest with the laboratory frame and is observing the body moving at velocity v. Period. Further, when he says the body has a velocity of 2v he also means it and that velocity is also seen from the laboratory frame.

The pathways at the airport seem to be a relevant comparison here?
You push a ball with 1 unit of force, witch makes it attain v. It smoothly transitions onto the pathway, which happens to move at v itself. we'll have to disregard spin here, because the ball would roll forward on the pathway when braking down the spin.
Anyway, we hop on the pathway where the ball is laying still. We again push it with 1 unit of force, and sure enough, we get 2*v as an actual speed. That is, if we did not slow down the pathway. But, we did! Pathway delivered the difference between dV and dVÂ².
If we step off the pathway and attempt to make the same push from the side rjust as the ball passes us, CAN we make it reach 2*V? we could use a lever to double our pushing speed, but that also reduces torque. The push is "weaker".
It all comes doen to this. Raise a weight to twice the height, and the speed it will fall to the ground to, will be MUCH less than twice the original. Distance*time is the bugger everytime.

energy is frame dependant
That's sheer nonsense.
Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.
"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely framedependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.
"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely framedependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.
Wikipedia is a better source than repeating one self in 100% surely establishing that OU was reached, each new hint of an idea.

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.
What a joke! It is your own dishonesty that you project.
Wikipedia can't educate ignorant people who want to remain in their ignorance. It is just a start point for intelligent people able to go beyond.
Kinetic energy being 1/2*m*vÂ² and v being frame dependant, it is obvious that kinetic energy is frame dependant.
But according to intuitive omnibus knowledge, Wikipedia is wrong and energy is independant of the frame of reference, therefore even when v=0, there is a kinetic energy!... ::) ::) ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

The latest update from the authors:
Dear Friends,
Several people already expressed great concern about possibility if the force acting against the ball could pass the same energy to the ball after the ball started to move.
The problem was that the force should pass extra path in order to catch and push the ball.
We already explained that the force must be fast enough in order to catch and to push the ball.
However, we forget to mention that acting force should be an Impulse, without passing extra path.
Imagine turning the wheel by the hand. The hand would pass the same path every time, but probably somewhat faster next time. Magnetic force would be the best to use. If acted on the wheel it would act against nearest magnet on the wheel and pass the same path every time.
By using the pendulum all this issues would become invalid because the pendulum comes to stop on each side and there is no any extra path passed by the force if the force was used in highest positions.
To illustrate impact of extra velocity (this time it was angular velocity) to the space module Explorer I, please read the document on the internet:
â€žVon Braunâ€™s 50yearold Secretâ€œ on the site:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm
Sincerely,
Jovan Marjanovic and Veljko Milkovic

I there's a little formula stating that if you inrease speed of actuator, you lose force by an equal amount...
You can't get both, full force AND distance. (Im)pulses are popupar, but don't help here.

I'm waiting for wikipedia to tell me what gravity is, according to wikipedia I will be a better person if I masturbate daily, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id1Po8ryJrU&playnext_from=TL&videos=vdgB163TTTw
Phuccwikipedia

What a joke! It is your own dishonesty that you project.
Wikipedia can't educate ignorant people who want to remain in their ignorance. It is just a start point for intelligent people able to go beyond.
Kinetic energy being 1/2*m*vÂ² and v being frame dependant, it is obvious that kinetic energy is frame dependant.
But according to intuitive omnibus knowledge, Wikipedia is wrong and energy is independant of the frame of reference, therefore even when v=0, there is a kinetic energy!... ::) ::) ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
Inadequate quoting is dishonesty. It is dishonest to give quotes about frame dependence with the intent to debunk someone's claims when that someone explicitly talks only about events occurring in one only frame.

As proof of OU, it is stated that:
 when you push a ball with a certain work and a force F, it acquires a velocity v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*vÂ²
 now the ball is rolling, and you repeat the first operation: you push again the ball with same work and same force F, it acquires a velocity 2*v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*2Â²*vÂ²
It is concluded that:
we have only doubled the work and obtained four times the kinetic energy!
This is total nonsense. Speed is relative to a reference frame, and so is the kinetic energy.
Energy is frame dependant.
...
I don't know what that fellow is claiming neither do I have the time right now to get into the details but one thing is clearwhen one says a body of mass m has velocity v that in no way implies the body can be observed from a different frame with the intention to prove that its velocity isn't v. That's such a dishonest twisting of someone's claim that I have no words for it. When someone says a body has velocity v he means it. That is, he is at rest with the laboratory frame and is observing the body moving at velocity v. Period. Further, when he says the body has a velocity of 2v he also means it and that velocity is also seen from the laboratory frame.
From the top:
You stand in your "laboratory frame" reference frame and kick a ball with impulse force F to make it roll with forward velocity v (and rotation w) towards your lab partner standing in your same "laboratory frame."
Your lab partner in your same reference frame intends to provide the second kick to make the 2v (2*v) velocity; to make the ball go twice as fast as it is rolling now.
The impact force of the foot on the ball depends upon the velocity the foot relative to the ball; if you kick it fast it goes fast, tap it slow it goes slow.
Without any math or physics "lies" about such things, we can easily infer through our childhood playground experience that the lab partner will need to kick way faster than you did to double the ball speed. If his body mass is about the same as yours and he kicks with the same foot speed that you did, we can all easily imagine that that ball will go no faster than v as his foot barely makes contact with the ball. (It's rolling right by him.)
He will need to kick twice as fast as you, (with the equivalent leg mass.) Unless he is riding on a scooter, (a different reference frame,) traveling along side the ball with the same velocity v. Then, in this scooter frame he can kick the rolling ball with your same effort.
So, either you lab partner provides a harder kick from the lab frame, (more energy than you from the lab frame,) or the same effort kick from the scooter frame, (but extra lab frame energy is required to move the scooter.)
Now I am out of time. Off to work now.

Ok, so I apply a force to a magnet to accelerate it to speed V within my frame of reference. Then I accelerate another magnet to the same speed. Both magnets have the same mass and react with each other to leave one stationary and the other moving at 2v in my frame of reference.
How does that work?

Ok, so I apply a force to a magnet to accelerate it to speed V within my frame of reference. Then I accelerate another magnet to the same speed. Both magnets have the same mass and react with each other to leave one stationary and the other moving at 2v in my frame of reference.
How does that work?
Good question.
Reference frames with respect to mechanical systems are easy for me to contemplate, (BSME.) Electromagnetic reference frames are something that I only started to ponder today, after my reply to this topic.
Let's see,... we would need individual reference frames for the electronic components, the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way Galaxy, and the entire Cosmos.
But electric and magnetic fields spread out in all directions, far away from the outer bounds of the physical components, like a ball or the floor, and they intermingle in 3D space, unlike a ball against the floor. The effects of a simple spark can not be confined to the component, the Earth, the solar system, etc.
Is it even possible to define reference frames in electromagnetic terms?
I need to think about this for awhile...
EDIT: (My two posts thus far on this subject are reactions to the posts only as I have not yet stolen enough time to read the posted PDF. I hope to read it tonight.)

This could be a valid explanation for the Donald Duck motor generator OU system at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMQvzOCNSI
Different frame of reference for the "pushes"
??

...
We already explained that the force must be fast enough in order to catch and to push the ball.
However, we forget to mention that acting force should be an Impulse, without passing extra path.
...
Meaningless. What means "fast enough"? How much? What means "passing extra path"? Where is the impulse applied from? Where are the equations? Those in the pdf are wrong or misinterpreted. It has to be honestly rewritten.
Milkovic's pendulum is a usefull device for some applications but under unity and perfectly explainable with current known physics laws. Nothing more. Or prove it by making it selfrunning instead of providing misleading math; this work would be much more profitable. If we had "12 times more output than input" as stipulated, this should be very very easy...

...
Is it even possible to define reference frames in electromagnetic terms?
...
It is not possible if you refer to fields. For example if you are stationary between the very large plates of a big capacitor moving along the plane of the plates, you can't see a moving field.
A field is just scalar values representing some space characteristics at every point (Feynman's definition) and when the values are constant it doesn't a matter if the source is moving. It is the same thing with a disk magnet rotating around its magnetic axis: the field is constant everywhere therefore the field doesn't rotate.
It follows that we can't take a field as "reference frame".

X
Oo
X
^ ^
 
 
X magnets, moving upward.
 magnets' respective initial vectors
Oo launch arm and pivot, massless and lossless.
The arm falls in place, beind the left, and in front of the right magnet. Right magnet exerts force on the lever, immediately transferred to the left magnet. Due to the pivot of the arm being further offset less the lateral distance between the magnet paths, the force transfer is fast enough, and end speed of the right magnet (near) zero. Elasticity of the arm might assist in accomplishing complete KE transfer.
According to Milkovic, the vectors can be added to result in double velocity for left magnet.
According to E=1/2 MVÂ², it cannot.
Am I understanding this right?

Meaningless. What means "fast enough"? How much? What means "passing extra path"? Where is the impulse applied from? Where are the equations? Those in the pdf are wrong or misinterpreted. It has to be honestly rewritten.
...
I do remember my engineering classes. Units were very important. Remember Hubble?
Not just English to Metric units; we could always check our answers for gross errors by checking the MLT, (Mass, Length & Time,) characteristics of our answer against what was expected: If our answer was in meters per second, (length over time = L/T,) and we were expecting an L/T^2, (acceleration,) answer, then we knew we made a mistake somewhere in our math because we got velocity, L/T.
I got stuck/lost on page three of the PDF and completely lost interest after that. They proposed transferring energy using a force, while on the previous page they state momentum as the transfer unit.
mass = M
length = L
time = T
velocity = L/T
acceleration = L/T^2
momentum = mass*velocity = M*L/T
force = mass*acceleration = M*L/T^2
work = energy = force over a distance = M*L/T^2*L = M*L^2/T^2
power = work done over time = M*L^2/T^2/T = M*L^2/T^3
So, instead of using momentum, M*L/T, he uses a force, M*L/T^2, or M*L/T/T. This is why he needs to state that it is an impact force, he needs to eliminate the "over time" part of the force, (/T), to get back to the momentum transfer.
Then there were all of these extra stipulations or definitions of how the force was always constant everywhere and I started to dozeoff. I wasted about an hour typing a response here and then I deleted it without posting. I felt like I was getting sucked into another leadout theory discussion around all the overunity spewing out of a simple pendulum because someone was twisting the basic rules of the game. I was not up to tearing down the window dressing hung up around the force about how this force shall act and how this force shall be applied, again.
The whole setup on the top of page three just blew me away.
...
Milkovic's pendulum is a usefull device for some applications but under unity and perfectly explainable with current known physics laws. Nothing more. Or prove it by making it selfrunning instead of providing misleading math; this work would be much more profitable. If we had "12 times more output than input" as stipulated, this should be very very easy...
Yep.