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 Posts: 897316
  • *Total Topics: 15812
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 16
  • *Total: 16

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10
21
mechanic / Re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?
« Last post by George1 on September 24, 2021, 10:06:11 AM »
To those sceptics, who are still not convinced in the validity of the zigzag principle.
=========================
Asking our simple question for the 44th time.
--------------------------------------------
1) Consider carefully and thoroughly (and many times!) the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
2) Assume that:
a) Ma = 1 kg;
b) Mb = 4 kg; the value of Mb can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
c) V1 = 1m/s = const;
d) Ffr. = force of friction inside the zigzag channels = 0.0000001 N; the latter can be further decreased as many times as you want;   
e) N = number of zigzags = 10; the value of N can be either increased or decreased as many times as you want;
f) Shapes of the zigzags = sinusoids; the latter can be replaced by any other curve patterns.
--------------------------------------------
3) It is evident that (always) V2 > 0 m/s and V3 > 0 m/s.
--------------------------------------------
4) It is evident that if V2 = 0.6 m/s and if V3 = 0.1 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is valid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is invalid.
--------------------------------------------
5) It is evident that if V2 = 0.8 m/s and if V3 = 0.3 m/s, then (a) the law of conservation of linear momentum is invalid and (b) the law of conservation of mechanical energy is valid.
--------------------------------------------
6) It is evident that if (a) V2 is not equal to 0.6 m/s, and if (b) V2 is not equal to 0.8 m/s, and if (c) V3 is not equal to 0.1 m/s, and if (d) V3 is not equal to 0.3 m/s, then both (e) the law of conservation of linear momentum and (f) the law of conservation of mechanical energy are invalid simultaneously in this special particular zigzag case, which is described in the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xX14NK8GrDY  .
--------------------------------------------
Asking again our simple question for the 44th time.
--------------------------------------------
QUESTION: Do you have any objections against any of the above items 3-6? Yes or no? (And if yes, then specify exactly which item you do not agree with and why.)
--------------------------------------------
Looking forward to your answer for the 44th time.
========================
P.S. It is worth to note a simple interesting experimental fact, which is as follows.
A) A certain number and a certain shape of the zigzags lead to the validity of the above written item 4.
B) Another combination of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 5.
C) And a third combination (and more precisely, a group of combinations) of number and shapes of the zigzags leads to the validity of the above written item 6.
22
mechanic / Re: IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?
« Last post by George1 on September 24, 2021, 10:04:22 AM »
To Jerry Volland and to onepower.
=============================
Shall we design our anti-gravity "bird" without wings? Some preliminary data? Length of the fly-wheel axis, diameter of the fly-wheel, thickness and mass/weight of the fly-wheel, its angular velocity and kinetic energy?
23
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by seychelles on September 24, 2021, 08:37:11 AM »
A VERY SIMPLE ELECTRONIC CIRCUIT THAT PROVES THAT IS DOCTOR
STIFFLER CIRCUIT.
24
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by Floor on September 24, 2021, 08:35:41 AM »
@nix85

This is what I said in my first post to this topic
https://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg560459/#msg560459
 
On the one hand you say 4 x energy is there simply because two waves combine constructively etcetera...  here  @  https://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg560460/#msg560460

My second post was a continuation of my first post.
https://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg560459/#msg560459

In a later post, you contradict your self  and say

"Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification
of energy, creating a sink for the ambient energy which is perceived as overunity but is not much different than a solar panel or a wind generator just working with subtler energy forms."

This last one, in which you contradict your self, I can find some reason to agree with.
In fact it is similar to the last things I said in my second post.

again @  https://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg560460/#msg560460
25
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by seychelles on September 24, 2021, 08:33:42 AM »
is the magnetic field force 4 times in an opposing magnetic field?
HENCE MAGNETIC FORCE AMPLIFICATION.
26
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by Floor on September 24, 2021, 08:00:28 AM »

intensity.
The intensity goes up by a factor of 4 when the amplitude doubles. This answer is a little disquieting. The two individual waves each have intensities of 1.00 W/m2, yet their sum has an intensity of 4.00 W/m2, which may appear to violate conservation of energy. This violation, of course, cannot happen. What does happen is intriguing. The area over which the intensity is 4.00 W/m2 is much less than the area covered by the two waves before they interfered. There are other areas where the intensity is zero. The addition of waves is not as simple as our first look in Superposition and Interference suggested. We actually get a pattern of both constructive interference and destructive interference whenever two waves are added. For example, if we have two stereo speakers putting out 1.00 W/m2 each, there will be places in the room where the intensity is 4.00 W/m2, other places where the intensity is zero, and others in between. Figure 2 shows what this interference might look like. We will pursue interference patterns elsewhere in this text.

Figure 2. These stereo speakers produce both constructive interference and destructive interference in the room, a property common to the superposition of all types of waves. The shading is proportional to intensity.
27
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by Floor on September 24, 2021, 07:57:26 AM »
nix85 quote
"I guess this is a good place to remind energy of a wave (any wave) is amplitude squared, when you add two same waves together amplitude becomes double, guess what happens to energy. "
end of nix85 quote

the amplitude of wave 1 = 10
          therefore
the energy of wave 1 = 100

amplitude of wave 2 = 10
         therefore
energy of wave 2 = 100
       their sum is
100 + 100 = 200
                      But
combined constructively the  amplitude is now 20
     and the energy of a wave is its amplitude squared
                   20^2 = 400
                 Ah ha proof that there is now 4 x the energy not just 2 x
                              and that would be amazing, but....

     https://pressbooks.online.ucf.edu/algphysics/chapter/energy-in-waves-intensity/

The amount of energy in a wave is related to its amplitude. Large-amplitude earthquakes produce large ground displacements. Loud sounds have higher pressure amplitudes and come from larger-amplitude source vibrations than soft sounds. Large ocean breakers churn up the shore more than small ones. More quantitatively, a wave is a displacement that is resisted by a restoring force. The larger the displacement x, the larger the force F = kx needed to create it. Because work W is related to force multiplied by distance (Fx) and energy is put into the wave by the work done to create it, the energy in a wave is related to amplitude. In fact, a wave’s energy is directly proportional to its amplitude squared because W ∝ Fx = kx2.
The energy effects of a wave depend on time as well as amplitude. For example, the longer deep-heat ultrasound is applied, the more energy it transfers. Waves can also be concentrated or spread out. Sunlight, for example, can be focused to burn wood. Earthquakes spread out, so they do less damage the farther they get from the source. In both cases, changing the area the waves cover has important effects. All these pertinent factors are included in the definition of intensity I as power per unit area: I=PA
, where P is the power carried by the wave through area A. The definition of intensity is valid for any energy in transit, including that carried by waves. The SI unit for intensity is watts per square meter (W/m2). For example, infrared and visible energy from the Sun impinge on Earth at an intensity of 1300 W/m2 just above the atmosphere. There are other intensity-related units in use, too. The most common is the decibel. For example, a 90 decibel sound level corresponds to an intensity of 10−3 W/m2. (This quantity is not much power per unit area considering that 90 decibels is a relatively high sound level. Decibels will be discussed in some detail in a later chapter.

We know from Chapter 16.10 Superposition and Interference that when two identical waves, which have equal amplitudes X, interfere perfectly constructively, the resulting wave has an amplitude of 2X. Because a wave’s intensity is proportional to amplitude squared, the intensity of the resulting wave is four times as great as in the individual waves.

Figure 2. These stereo speakers produce both constructive interference and destructive interference in the room, a property common to the superposition of all types of waves. The shading is proportional to
The intensity of a wave is not the same as the total energy content of that wave.
28
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by seychelles on September 24, 2021, 05:36:20 AM »
SO WATTS PER SECOND YEAH. AMPLIFICATION OF ENERGY IS POSSIBLE.
SO WHICH HAS MORE POWER A SINE WAVE OF 100 V RMS AT 1 AMP  AT 100HZ
OR A SINE WAVE OF 100V RMS AT 1 AMP AT 100KZ?
29
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by nix85 on September 24, 2021, 03:50:59 AM »
I don't put words in your mouth, you did compare apples and oranges.

I did not call you a dog, i wrote "like a dog". Learn the difference.

Yea you push false ideas, you took a clear side that superposition of waves cannot give energy gain.

If i want to do something constructive? Oh the irony. Unlike you, i share valuable info pretty much all the time. What did you share except useless dramas and skepticism.

Of course i speak for everyone. Everyone knows what amplification is in conventional sense and the difference from energy amplification in OU sense.

"Apparently you don't understand either."

Ha! We can talk ABCD classes of amps, or common emitter/collector/base conf., or difference in gain bypass cap makes... or can you.

"Using a cone to focus energy in one direction is not amplification, period."

"Amplify" does NOT have to mean that output energy has increased. It can and does mean energy has increased in particular direction.

Focusing energy in one direction is amplifying it for that direction at the expense of all others. And it's not just focusing, it is also matching impedance improving transfer of energy.

(Not even gonna get into possible overunity effects of soundwave superposition).

"Acoustic horns are found in nature in the form of the burrows constructed by male mole crickets to amplify their song."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_(acoustic)

A megaphone, speaking-trumpet, bullhorn, blowhorn, or loudhailer is usually a portable or hand-held, cone-shaped acoustic horn used to amplify a person's voice or other sounds and direct it in a given direction.

[...]

There have been references to speakers in Ancient Greece (5th Century B.C.) wearing masks with cones protruding from the mouth in order to amplify their voices in theatres.

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

Quote
Again you think you speak for everyone, do you?
       

You think there is a person on this forum who doesn't understand the difference between an audio amplifier and overunity device.

Energy amplification is a perfectly valid term making a distinction between conventional amplification and amplification using ambient as a battery. There is no oxymoron or contradiction of any kind, you are creating them by useless semantic disputes.

 
Quote
accusing some one of wrong doing
                                      putting words into an others mouth again.


Oh what a drama queen you are. I am not accusing nor putting anything. Again, you claim there is no energy gain in superposition of waves. You don't know this so don't push false claims.


Quote
                                    Simple direct question but no answer from you,
                        and then you try to hide behind something "Vajda clearly says"
                                   and "Vajda claims" and the reputations of  Tesla and DonSmith.

More silliness. I am not "trying to hide" behind anyone. The debate on this topic has been open on this forum since 2007 and no one conclusively proved or disproved it. So of course i don't claim anything 100% regarding this particular idea by itself. However when superposition of waves, that is, resonance is used in systems ala Don Smith where induction is done lenzlessly, then all limits are off.
30
solid state devices / Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
« Last post by Floor on September 24, 2021, 01:28:33 AM »
@nix85

                                                 I don't object at all....
                            to the exploration of alternative energy devices,
                       energy from the ambient, zero point energy, magnets, gravity,
                                                what ever, you name it.

Problem is you put words in my mouth.
Problem is, you called me "dog".
Problem is you insinuate and / or out right accuse me of pushing false ideas and so on.

Problem is now, for you, to decide if you want to do some thing more constructive.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

@ All readers

In quotation marks are nix85 comments (through out this post).

"Everyone here understands the meaning signal of amplification,"

                          First off, YOU don't speak for every one here.
                                                         You got that ?
                                         But also. no, they don't ALL understand.
                                        Apparently you don't understand either.


"be it active amplification as with audio amp or passive as with a cone focusing energy in one direction."

                                   Using a cone to focus energy in one direction
                                                is not amplification, period.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification of energy,"

                                     Again you think you speak for everyone, do you?
 
                                    "That kind" of amplification is called... amplification.
                 There is no such, other kind, of amplification, as energy amplification or other wise.
                           The only kind of amplification there is...  is active amplification.
                             Use of the phrase by you is an oxmoron, a contradiction in terms.

"Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification of energy, creating a sink for the ambient energy which is perceived as overunity but is not much different than a solar panel or a wind generator just working with subtler energy forms."

                                                                   So ...
                                                     "we are talking about"  we ? 
                                      No. You are talking about "a kind of amplification".
                              A kind of amplification that doesn't exist, and its application
                                               in  "creating a sink for ambient energy".

                           By the way and again, I have no problem with people exploring
                                     ambient, alternative or "overunity" energy sources
                                      despite the things you have said and implied of me.
.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"So energy amplification is not 'silly', you are just misinterpreting things, pushing the false idea that you can't get more energy from the ambient than you put in."

                                               "So energy amplification is not 'silly"
                                                                     Disagree.
"you are just misinterpreting things, pushing the false idea that you can't get more energy from the ambient than you put in."
                                     
                                                          There you go...
                                        accusing some one of wrong doing
                                      putting words into an others mouth again.
.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
                                  I repeated my questions.
1. Do you really think that two waves from opposite ends of  a jump rope, constructively meeting
at is center contains more than the sum of the energy of the two waves separately ?
 
                                          your response

"1) I don't claim anything black and white, i discuss, as others discussed this topic here (linked on previous page). Vajda clearly says in his paper both energy gain and loss may be achieved. Formula for wave energy says double the amplitude quadrupole the energy. Vajda claims to have confirmed this, Don Smith and others too. So, it is not a question if it is possible, but rather a question of how to explain it. And i prefer to explain it in terms of creating a sink (term Tesla used) for the ambient energy."
 
        nix85 quote
  "I don't claim anything black and white"
         nix85 quote

                                     Simple direct question but no answer from you,
                        and then you try to hide behind something "Vajda clearly says"
                                   and "Vajda claims" and the reputations of  Tesla and DonSmith.

            floor
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 10

OneLink