...
Free energy devices are already here-overunity devices in that they put out more than they consume can not exist,as the energy has to come from some where.
It is a banality to say it. "Overunity" is relative to an apparently closed system. If it produces more than it consumes, naturally there is a strong suspiscion that the system is not closed and the energy comes from an unknown source elsewhere. They fact that energy can neither be created or destroyed makes the above true.
Energy conservation is an observed fact. Now there is no absolute rule. For example, in a multiverse theory such this from Everett, where two universes interfer, energy could pass from one to another. Science is not the "truth". Science is the best human knowledge of our world, at a given time. It must be known but it's not the bible: if it is confirmed that observations contradict a theory, the theory must be abandonned or revised. ...
All i see that can be done ,is improvements to what we already have.
Imagine that you said this in year 1800 when only stream engines were known. You would have worked to improved engines limited by the Carnot cycle. But in 1820, Oersted would have shown you that electricity can exert a mechanical force, and this discovery led to electrical motors with a potential efficiency exceeding 95% in practice, much better than your heat engines. For improving the actual technology, there are many engineers and scientists working every day in the public and private sectors. They don't need help. Only a breaking technology is needed, as was electricity relative to heat engines. If the best motors are at 95% efficiency,then lets aim for 97%.
There is no harm in trying something new.
No interest at this level, it's "overquality": much work for almost nothing, useless to solve the energy crisis. If you really want work on conventional devices, only heat engine need to be improved, or thermoelectric converter...
|
Author
Topic: Naudin's Gegene (Read 204809 times)
