Hello and best to you all, be you conservatives or dreamers.
I start this thread to discuss "Over unity", what do you think it is, do you enetertain the idea of OU existing.
My axiom thought on the matter is this: the universe exists, that in its very self seems to be "over unity" after all without breaking unity the universe would't exist and I wouldn't be typing this and all that there would be was a bland void of nothingness. But out of the void the universe came about, that in itself seems to break LOT1 (big time), at least in my mind.
Also the fact that the universe contains complexity is another mindbender. Consider this: If the universe was born into a void then its very first moment of existence must have been a "singularity" that being a dimensionless point of "energy" within the infinite void. But if I think about such a scenario then I can only imagine the singularity expanding into the void, propogating outward in a spherical fashion. Why at any time would the singularity begin to show any type of structure, surely it would expand into a completely symetrical and boring sphere, lacking any structure? What external influence caused the asymetry, what caused the complexity. If you say "the hand of god" then you admit (as do I) that you know nothing in the grand scheme of things.
My point is that I (we) cannot ever think that I (we) know everything, after all the universe has already belittled such narrow notions by its very existence.
Do I think OU, exists? I'm pretty sure it does, the easiest access point for us being our lovely star Sol. Any "OU" device will probably harvest most of its apparent excess energy from Sol at the end of the day so strictly speaking the device itself will not be OU, but it will interface with the OU universe, which itself runs from some strange source.
Anyway, I would like to know your opinions on OU. And any disciples of LOT1, could you explain how the universe became?
I think Over Unity is anything that gives you more back then you put in. It doesn't matter what that is, monetary investments to heat pumps, I'm sure we can all think of examples. Do I believe in perpetual motion? No, I do not! (that is maybe with the exception of atoms) I believe there is energy all around us and tapping that energy for use is what I think we are all about at these forums. Is petroleum over unity? It doesn't take as much energy to pump it out of the ground as it provides in energy? No one would ever say that though, you would be laughed at if you said oil was over unity. All we need is a new source of energy to tap and a way to tap it, that is like, pumping oil out of the ground and provides more energy then it costs to get it out. Solar fits this bill as does wind and I feel sure there must be more that we do not yet know about out there waiting to be discovered.
Quote from: Room3327 on 2010.10.18, 16:51:10
...All we need is a new source of energy to tap and a way to tap it...
Yes, when all is said and done this is what is needed.
Over Unity does not exist.
Completely closed systems do not exist.
What does exist is the arrogance of this species to think we know of all energy sources, where one system ends and another system begins.
Here is a simple over unity thought experiment:
You have a one-meter-square transparent Lucite cube. There is no energy in any form being directed at the cube. In other words you are not beaming any infrared heat energy, sound energy, electromagnetic energy, etc, at the cube.
You put some kind of over unity device inside the cube and it produces a continuous form of some kind of energy seemingly out of nothingness. This output power is usable to do some kind of work. So the device could light up a LED or light bulb, produce heat, drive a mechanical load, etc.
That's it, you are talking about a device that can produce energy all by itself without any external energy sources.
There are two exceptions that would be acceptable:
1) If the device requires a battery, then the measured energy output from the device has to be at least 100 times the energy contained in the battery to be convincing and this would have to occur within three months or less.
2) If the device requires an external power source, then the output power from the device would have to be greater than the input power, and the device must run for at least three months non-stop to be convincing.
So my two exceptions account for your typical free energy device. They almost always need a battery or a power source.
Note that the devices must produce a usable output, which disqualifies all experiments that are purely based on observing battery voltages.
Devices based on renewable energy sources should never be confused with alleged free energy devices. Solar, wind, hydro power, etc, are not things that allegedly produce energy out of nothingness.
For Fraser: The Universe, and our sun are not free energy devices. They are burning fuel. The fuel is hydrogen and helium, it's fusion-based atomic power. All of the suns in the Universe will eventually run out of fuel. The Universe is a giant demonstration of the conservation of energy in action. I am limiting my comments here to the the "basic" physical realm that we exist in. The metaphysical and/or cosmological and quantum physics discussion about how the Universe began, where the hydrogen gas came from, etc, is a separate discussion. Life on the Earth exists because we absorb and make use of the abundantly available solar power provided by the Sun.
MileHigh
If atoms run free then why can't we?
Even in a confined lattice the electrons still orbit. Do gravity and centrifugal force play the powers here. What places the orbital shells at the static place of existance?
The orbiting, spinning electron is just a view of the active atom. Even the atom is in motion. What controls the paradigm?
I believe the it is the same process at all levels just different names.
Take the current example of 'We found 2 planets in the Goldilock's zone'. We named them. And when we get to visit them and meet these inhabitants we tell them we are from Earth. And they reply 'What is that? Oh, you mean TTDSSDFSR1224324 of ERMWE%RT$TE.
@Fraser
First I think we should consider "what" it is we are saying when we say "overunity", what is it? By definition it is --- "Over" : In or at a position above or higher than, and "Unity" : The state or quality of being in accord; harmony, Singleness or constancy of purpose or action; continuity. As well the popular definition of overunity relates to perpetual motion, which taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. Now if "motion" is the the act or process of changing position or place relative to something else then can any one of the smart people here give me one, just one, single example of anything in our universe that will never move or change position ever? You see this is the problem, it is completely absurd to even suggest that anything anywhere will never move thus everything must be in perpetual motion it is simply a matter of the degree of motion as it relates to time. Is a rock laying on the ground in motion? If we believe it is not in motion then why does the sun shine on it some of the time during the day and not at night? Or are we still in the stone ages where it was believed that the sun revolved around the earth,lol. In fact the earth is spinning on axis and orbiting the sun thus everything which constitutes "The Earth" is in motion, can any person give me even one example where any single part of the Earth anywhere could not be in perpetual motion?
Let's look at this from another perspective, we are facing each other and not moving relative to one another, are we in motion? Well it's debatable as science tells us we are made of molecules and they are made of atoms and these "atoms" are always jiggling and moving about even at absolute zero temperatures, now exactly how could "we" not be in motion when we know as a fact that every single part which constitutes "us" is in motion? In order to believe we are not moving we must essentially go against everything that science stands for in terms of the conservation of mass, the conservation of energy and all laws regarding motion. We must essentially deny all that science stands for and return to the stone ages to believe anything anywhere is not in perpetual motion.
We could take yet another perspective, lets not consider perpetual motion in any way and we will concentrate our thoughts strictly on energy. Can we get more energy from something than we put in? Well, this is a trick question because all energy in any form that we know of relates directly to ----- "motion" and there is not one single thing anywhere that is not in motion. What we call "chemical" energy relates to atoms and how they interact as molecules thus all chemical energy is always fundamentally related to atomic energy. What we call EM (Electromagnetic) energy always relates to matter, it is in matter as vibrations or a frequency of oscillation of the parts which constitute matter and can radiate from matter as EM waves which must at some point in time gravitate to other forms of matter and the whole cycle continues. So the contradiction in terms would seem to be as perpetual as the energy or motion itself, there can be no energy nor matter not in motion anywhere as the degree of motion in itself defines "what" energy and matter are fundamentally. So this question relating to whether "something" has energy or motion as they are the same thing is in itself absurd, the question relating to whether energy in whatever form it may take can be harnessed is obvious.
Perpetual motion of energy and matter are not an exception to any rule of science they are the norm as dictated by science and nature, so my challenge holds to everyone here------ give me one, one single example of anything anywhere which is not in perpetual motion which is in fact what we call "energy".
@milehigh
QuoteAll of the suns in the Universe will eventually run out of fuel. The Universe is a giant demonstration of the conservation of energy in action.
You forgot to mention the little fact that "NEW" suns will perpetually be created as will planets and in some cases life on these newly created planets as dictated by the conservation of energy and ----- Gravity.
Regards
AC
I fully believe that other energy sources exist that we know little or nothing about. How the universe operates is still open for debate, but I have never heard a satisfactory answer for how the universe began. If you like the "Big Bang", then pray tell where all that matter/energy came from before it went "bang".
From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
The First Law of Thermodynamics:
QuoteThe First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; rather, the amount of energy lost in a steady state process cannot be greater than the amount of energy gained. This is the statement of conservation of energy for a thermodynamic system. It refers to the two ways that a closed system transfers energy to and from its surroundings – by the process of heat transfer and the process of mechanical work. The rate of gain or loss in the stored energy of a system is determined by the rates of these two processes. In open systems, the flow of matter is another energy transfer mechanism, and extra terms must be included in the expression of the first law.
The First Law clarifies the nature of energy. It is a stored quantity which is independent of any particular process path, i.e., it is independent of the system history. If a system undergoes a thermodynamic cycle, whether it becomes warmer, cooler, larger, or smaller, then it will have the same amount of energy each time it returns to a particular state. Mathematically speaking, energy is a state function and infinitesimal changes in the energy are exact differentials.
An open system could convert energy from another source to produce excess energy over that supplied to casue the covnersion. Renewable energy convertion devices do this all the time and no one says they ar fake or impossible: solar cells, wind mills, wave machines, thermoelectric devices. Of course if you say you tapped into the universe itself for energy then you get that strange look...
Quote from: giantkiller on 2010.10.18, 22:23:32
If atoms run free then why can't we?
Even in a confined lattice the electrons still orbit. Do gravity and centrifugal force play the powers here. What places the orbital shells at the static place of existance?
The orbiting, spinning electron is just a view of the active atom. Even the atom is in motion. What controls the paradigm?
I believe the it is the same process at all levels just different names.
Your comment is a recurring theme that you see on the forums. The distinction is sometimes subtle, it's all about drawing a distinction between an "energy state" and an alleged source of free energy.
Electrons spin forever around the nucleus of an atom. A satellite will spin forever in orbit around the Earth or the moon.
These are two very similar examples of systems in an energy state. The electrons are spinning in a vacuum and their path is mostly governed by electrical attraction and a bit by gravitational attraction. In the case of the satellite the path is governed by gravitational attraction only.
The orbit shell for the electron determines the atom's energy state and the distance between the satellite and the center of mass of the moon determines the energy state.
It's easier to see for the case of the satellite. A bigger rocket containing more energy can push the satellite up into a higher orbit. Some of the energy stored in the rocket gets transferred into the moving satellite. The satellite then orbits forever, in a certain orbit that corresponds to a certain energy state. So you can say that the satellite in orbit is an energy storing mechanism.
It's a very similar story for an electron in orbit about a nucleus. There is an inherent amount of energy stored in the nucleus-electron system. It's a property of all matter. The Aurora Borealis or a LASER beam are examples of electrons going up and down in energy states. In both cases the electron-nucleus systems are being knocked around by an outside source of energy which gets temporarily stored and then released.
Relative to this discussion though, the most important point is these two examples are NOT sources of energy. There is no "running free" going on. You are implying that something is powering these systems. Nothing is powering them, and they are not a source of power. They are simply systems that are in a certain energy state.
Here is a thought experiment: You have a box with a perfect vacuum and inside the box there is a rotor spinning at high speed on frictionless magnetic bearings. You can see the spinning rotor through a window on the box. The rotor is at a certain energy state, it is not a source of energy itself. The box experiment is analogous to a hydrogen atom. If there were magnets on the rotor and you put a pick-up coil next to the glass to get some energy, the rotor would slow down until it stopped.
Atoms in physical motion on an atomic scale is a manifestation of heat energy. That heat energy could come from the core of the Earth or from the sun. One more time, the atoms themselves are not a source of energy.
MileHigh
In order for everything to exist, by whatever means you can dream up, there must be a mechanism for creation of energy, just as there is for conversion of energy into different forms.
If you say "energy cannot be created", then how did the universe begin? If you say "it just is", then you are copping out.
I know the idea is absurd to some, but lets be real about it. Something started this universe and the universe has rules. These rules have to exist as sure as the universe exists, else it could not have started.
What are the rules for creation of energy?
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.18, 22:26:41
@milehighYou forgot to mention the little fact that "NEW" suns will perpetually be created as will planets and in some cases life on these newly created planets as dictated by the conservation of energy and ----- Gravity.
When suns run out of atomic fuel they turn into dwarfs or go nova or supernova and of course the novas spit gasses and heavier elements back out into space. These gasses can condense into new stars again and continue the process of converting matter into energy. However, this is not a perpetual process. Eventually there will be no more lighter elements to form new stars and the Universe will start to blink out and go dark. I am of course simplifying the discussion here, not dealing with a potential big crunch of the Universe and all that jazz. Right now the astronomers are all trying to understand the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. If this acceleration is indeed fact, then the Universe eventually going black is the expected outcome. The main point relative to this discussion is that there is a finite amount of energy available in the Universe.
Grumpy:
QuoteAn open system could convert energy from another source to produce excess energy over that supplied to casue the covnersion
It's a possibility and if an when we discover another source then things will change. However, we are stuck with what we have got for the time being. You even see clips where a Bedini enthusiasts say that their Bedini motors are "open systems" and the charging battery is getting extra energy from somewhere else. I don't buy their argument and I honestly don't buy the open/closed system argument in general.
This could all change if the day ever comes when "another source" is discovered and experimentally proven to exist. This concept is another tool used by people in the free energy cottage industry. "EFTV" might ring a bell.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.18, 23:35:17
In order for everything to exist, by whatever means you can dream up, there must be a mechanism for creation of energy, just as there is for conversion of energy into different forms.
If you say "energy cannot be created", then how did the universe begin? If you say "it just is", then you are copping out.
I know the idea is absurd to some, but lets be real about it. Something started this universe and the universe has rules. These rules have to exist as sure as the universe exists, else it could not have started.
What are the rules for creation of energy?
Harold Aspden's "The Physics of Creation" : http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.18, 23:35:17
What are the rules for creation of energy?
I read the Steven Hawking book "A Brief History of Time" a long time ago. Most people are probably aware that this is a layperson's explanation for the Big Bang and all that stuff.
It was either from that book or from a later interview with him he mentions that the theories and equations suggest that the absolute perfect symmetry of "nothingness" (not sure how to define that in this context) was a "stressful" situation that simply could not exist, and so the Big Bang had to happen to "relieve" this stressful situation.
So once the cat was let out of the bag, so to speak, the energy associated with the existence of the Universe "came into being."
I am just being a parrot here, I don't have any profound insight or theories. I have a lot of faith in the sun though because of the terra-watts of energy that it shines on the Earth. That gives me a lot of faith in the Earth with respect to the doomsayers that talk about environmental disasters and the extinction of all life on Earth or everything choking and dying because of too much pollution. As long as the sun keeps shining and humanity is not too stupid we are going to be fine.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.10.18, 23:43:04
Grumpy:
It's a possibility and if an when we discover another source then things will change. However, we are stuck with what we have got for the time being. You even see clips where a Bedini enthusiasts say that their Bedini motors are "open systems" and the charging battery is getting extra energy from somewhere else. I don't buy their argument and I honestly don't buy the open/closed system argument in general.
This could all change if the day ever comes when "another source" is discovered and experimentally proven to exist. This concept is another tool used by people in the free energy cottage industry. "EFTV" might ring a bell.
MileHigh
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpocch9.pdf
Another energy source has been proposed. See page 26 / 42 in this pdf.
So, per Hawking, a "stressful situation" allows energy to just "come into being"? I'll take that.
@Grumpy
QuoteIn order for everything to exist, by whatever means you can dream up, there must be a mechanism for creation of energy, just as there is for conversion of energy into different forms.
If you say "energy cannot be created", then how did the universe begin? If you say "it just is", then you are copping out.
I know the idea is absurd to some, but lets be real about it. Something started this universe and the universe has rules. These rules have to exist as sure as the universe exists, else it could not have started.
I would agree, the supposed theory of the "Big Bang" and "Expanding Universe" theory seem to be going the way of the dinosaurs-- Extinct, lol. There is a growing amount of evidence that the bean counters forgot that what many call empty space was never in fact empty and is in fact full of radiation at most all wavelengths. It seems that what they call red shift may in fact be an illusion not unlike that caused by water vapor in our atmosphere where certain wavelengths are effected or distorted. LOL, those poor silly bastards you would think the first clue would have been that the whole universe would seem to be expanding away from us in which case we have returned to the dark ages once again where we are the supposed center of the universe. This seems to be a recurring theme in history where ego's would seem to override all common sense, we are the center of the universe, there is no life intelligent or not other than us in the universe, everything is dying and will wither away to nothing and they are the smartest SOB's on the planet, lol, please give me a break. I get very tired of seeing this cycle of stupidity repeated over and over throughout our history and it does not really give me a great deal of confidence in our men of science.
Concerning how things came to be in the universe we know, what exactly do we know? Well we know nothing, the farther we look outward into the supposedly empty vacuum of space the more "stuff" we see and the farther we look inward into a supposedly empty vacuum the more "stuff" we see. As such the only real hard facts we have are that 1)As far as we have the ability to see or measure we always find more and more "stuff" and 2)We have no proof, not one single thread of proof that the universe ends anywhere-- inward or outward, the one thing we do know is that we canot see very far or near because we are not nearly as smart as we think we are. Our preoccupation with a "start" to something or an "end" to something is an unjustified obsession which makes us feel better so that things make more sense in our minds but is not necessarily any kind of reality.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.19, 00:03:51
Another energy source has been proposed. See page 26 / 42 in this pdf.
Yes, energy from the vacuum. In my opinion the author takes liberties. You know how people talk about the Earth's Schumann resonance? For some reason a certain percentage of enthusiasts believe it can be source of energy. It's not a source of energy, it's just a
property of the Earth system, where a large electromagnetic resonant cavity is formed around the Earth. It's because the ionosphere is conductive, and can reflect some electromagnetic energy like a mirror. By the same token permittivity and permeability are properties of empty space.
I looked at the resonant capacitor circuit and the 1871 Daniel McFarland Cook patent based on two connected coils. I don't know Grumpy if when you read this stuff if you take a specific example like this to be literally true, or if think it might be possible that it's true, or if you don't believe it to be true. Another comment is that in 1871 the people in the patent office would not be qualified to say if it was true or not. The author is citing an example that is not true.
The whole notion of energy from the vacuum has to actually be demonstrated and replicated to have any serious scientific credibility. Even if the quantum physicists say there are energy fluctuations on the quantum scale and there is a graininess for time on a nano-scale and of course there is the famous Casimir effect and so on, we live in a macroscopic world. So many fake experiments state that the energy comes from the vacuum, without demonstrating how they actually do it.
There is a statement that free energy experimenters don't like. The statement is that there no possible combination of passive and active electrical components that could be configured into any possible circuit that will produce free energy. In other words you can play with inductors, capacitors, resistors, transistors, MOSFETs and diodes until you are blue in the face and there will never be a "magic" combination that produces free energy. This is based on the differential and other equations that describe the components and the mathematical tools for doing the network analysis for any circuit. It's how pSpice and Spice work and it is how the real world works, until the time comes that somebody can prove otherwise.
I mention this comment (which I know is a big downer for some) because I personally view the notion of getting energy for free from "vacuum energy" the same way. I can't envision any logical way to get energy from the vacuum in the macroscopic world that we live in. I know nothing about this field, so it's just my feeling. The only way I would believe this would be to see it demonstrated and replicated with everything properly documented and the mechanics of the process clearly explained. We are a long way from that. The best we seem to be able to do is something like the Tariel Kapanadze affair. If he is holding back on the intellectual property, then the replicators are building stuff without having the proper information, which I find strange. If he is real, then one day you should be able to buy a Kapanadze free energy generator for your house. Or the whole thing is a con job to get money from gullible investors.
MileHigh
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.18, 22:26:41
Now if "motion" is the the act or process of changing position or place relative to something else then can any one of the smart people here give me one, just one, single example of anything in our universe that will never move or change position ever?
Yes, a Black Hole. Happens every once in a while. Well in my view, a black hole is like a space anchor. It does not move relative to anything else or it moves but very very slowly. It is created by exploding stars that shoot out matter in every direction, especially in one principal direction and that is exactly against the direction of it universal movement in space just before the explosion of the star. If the matter is ejected at the exact same speed as the universal movement of the star before its explosion, that ejected mass will be like in zero motion for a split second and because of this, the electrons of the mass will no longer be able to turn around their nucleus clusters, hence the atom implodes into less then one millionth of its former spacial monopoly. It just disappears and produces a minute black hole. If there is enough mass at zero motion or near zero motion, near that black hole, it will just get sucked into it and no longer have motion, electrons cannot spin, atoms cannot stay puffed up, implode and the mass again disappears. If you are nothing, can you have motion?
I believe that if you could travel in space at any speed. There is one speed and one direction that if you combined, you would simply disappear and actually produce a black hole. That would be a prohibited speed/direction that space travelers would always have to avoid.
The motion you talk about is bigger and faster then you may think.
Overunity is just a condition based on our limited knowledge and given greater knowledge overunity will become normal-unity.
Man I better stop or I will go on for hours.
Quote from: allcanadian on 2010.10.19, 00:36:20
It seems that what they call red shift may in fact be an illusion not unlike that caused by water vapor in our atmosphere where certain wavelengths are effected or distorted. LOL, those poor silly bastards you would think the first clue would have been that the whole universe would seem to be expanding away from us in which case we have returned to the dark ages once again where we are the supposed center of the universe. This seems to be a recurring theme in history where ego's would seem to override all common sense, we are the center of the universe, there is no life intelligent or not other than us in the universe, everything is dying and will wither away to nothing and they are the smartest SOB's on the planet
AC:
Some of these grand concepts were debated among scientists and astronomers for a long time. If i recall correctly the expanding Universe theory was a fairly short debate and I think a few confirmations of Hubble's observational data was enough to convince the majority. It was a different story for the existence of other galaxies. I think it took about 10 years for that debate to finally get settled. I think this happened somewhere around the turn of the last century.
Just one clarification: The whole red shift/expanding universe theory states that any place in the universe can be considered to be the "center"of the universe. That's because any other place in the Universe will also observe everything else moving away in all directions.
MileHigh
OK MH, energy from the vacuum is a ways away.
For the universe to exist, there has to be a mechanism for creating the energy which becomes the matter.
Think about that.
Overunity or excess energy output is not so hard to believe when put in this perspective. There was a time in the history of the universe when energy was created by some unknown means, else the universe would not exist in the first place. It does not suffice to say that it just "is", and if Hawking's "stressful situation" ever existed then what was the source of this stress that created energy from "nothing"?
So, it is possible the create energy after all. We just don't know how to do it, or do we?
Grumpy:
I agree with you on the "big questions." Certainly energy and matter were created at some point in time. At least that's what it looks like. We have gone from the idea that the Universe is static and unchanging, to the idea that it is this swirling ever-changing cauldron of mass and energy.
A really great series to watch is the famous Carl Sagan series "Cosmos" from 1980. I think in there he says a memorable line, "We humans are just matter that became aware of it's own existence." It a shame in that I think he passed away before the first official discovery of an extra-solar planet. Now we know that there are billions and billions of them out there.
We don't know how to create energy out of nothingness yet we assume that in our history it did happen.
The rate of increase of knowledge keeps on getting higher and higher so you never know. Being an old techie if you told me in 1981 that CPU clock frequencies would go from 4 megahertz to 4 gigahertz in about 25 years time I would have thought that you were crazy. Many times I have been reminded about my own limitations for conceiving things.
MileHigh
@Wattsup
The problem with black holes, worm holes and multiple universes is the fact that they are self-referencing as much of modern physics is. The story goes like this, someone states there "may" be a possibility of such a thing as a black hole in theory and someone agree's then some equations are made to verify that yes it is "theoritically" possible.Then someone says this thing in space which we do not understand and we do not know what it is may be a candidate for a black hole based on these calculations and the fact someone said it "may" be possible. The problem is each level in the chain has referenced the other as if it were a fact when in fact there are no real facts to be had not unlike an urban legend or old wives tale. The arguement is circular and reinforces itself and other often imaginary things through itself and not what anyone would consider as real facts. If however you could show me an actual image of a real black hole sucking in galaxies, planets and light itself then I would be willing to change my opinion.
I should note that much of what I have seen in the FE forums tends to be self-referencing as well, the real trick is seperating fact from fiction.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.19, 00:03:51
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpocch9.pdf
Another energy source has been proposed. See page 26 / 42 in this pdf.
At the end of this chapter, Aspden explains how the aether might be accessed as an energy source. It appears that no one read that far. Aspden talks about establishing a contiuous electrical displacement, essentially keeping the capacitor continuously polarized, much like the TPU.
Nice replies gents, this forum is still refreshingly civil and sensible.
It's good to hear that you pretty much all entertain the possibility of there being untapped sources of energy available to us.
I agree that the term "closed system" is just that, a term. No system can ever be closed. And some systems might have interfaces to external info/energy that we aren't yet aware of.
So any "OU" device if engineered, will not really be "OU" but it will interface to a hitherto undocumented (in mainstream) energy source.
Yes the sun is a splendid thing, the awesome power incident on our earth is impressive, and then when you consider that our earth only captures a tiny amount of the total radiated energy (a Dyson sphere would catch it all), its just mind boggling.
I think I'll read that Aspden pdf.
@milehigh
QuoteThere is a statement that free energy experimenters don't like. The statement is that there no possible combination of passive and active electrical components that could be configured into any possible circuit that will produce free energy. In other words you can play with inductors, capacitors, resistors, transistors, MOSFETs and diodes until you are blue in the face and there will never be a "magic" combination that produces free energy. This is based on the differential and other equations that describe the components and the mathematical tools for doing the network analysis for any circuit. It's how pSpice and Spice work and it is how the real world works, until the time comes that somebody can prove otherwise.
Of course this statement is completely false and I have proven it for myself countless times, build a simple crystal radio circuit with a long antenna or "coil" and then "listen" to the sound from the speaker --- What do you hear? Well you hear static on every single frequency and this static is obviously energy. Sound is not just created by nothing, sound does not just magically appear out of nowhere, this "sound" you are hearing is vibrations in the speaker which have been caused by energy on every single frequency of the crystal radio which has no power source other than the incoming energy. I am not speaking of man made radio signals I am speaking of that static you always hear in the background on every single frequency, now what exactly do you think it is? -- it is free energy. This is one of countless examples I could give you where free electrical energy is extracted from the environment and to be honest I have no idea what you could have been thinking when you made this post, now you have your proof.
Regards
AC
AC:
To quote myself:
QuoteDevices based on renewable energy sources should never be confused with alleged free energy devices. Solar, wind, hydro power, etc, are not things that allegedly produce energy out of nothingness.
Your example doesn't count because it falls within the class of renewable energy sources.
QuoteI have no idea what you could have been thinking when you made this post, now you have your proof.
I have no idea what you could have been thinking about myself AC. Perhaps you should seek out some further guidance about energy concepts in general since you seem to be confused?
Please try contemplating this statement that I made earlier:
QuoteYou have a one-meter-square transparent Lucite cube. There is no energy in any form being directed at the cube. In other words you are not beaming any infrared heat energy, sound energy, electromagnetic energy, etc, at the cube.
You put some kind of over unity device inside the cube and it produces a continuous form of some kind of energy seemingly out of nothingness. This output power is usable to do some kind of work. So the device could light up a LED or light bulb, produce heat, drive a mechanical load, etc.
That's it, you are talking about a device that can produce energy all by itself without any external energy sources.
Now for every one of your "countless examples" I suggest that you review it against the criteria quoted above. If you are confused, I suggest that you check Wikipedia or the Hyperphysics web site or other sources to evaluate your examples on a case by case basis before you cite them here.
MileHigh
HHHMMMmmmm....
What is OU??
A shot accross the Bow MH
---------------------------------------
The Thane Heinz, AKA Boom Boom ,CrankyPants, Man Zilla
I can Do 2700% [to Infinite] OU, What can you do info?
JUST POSTED DOCUMENTS
Right here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=443
and he is available for Input and replication here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.new
Chet
PS
Just an invite ,I am not qualified to comment!
@milehigh
QuoteYour example doesn't count because it falls within the class of renewable energy sources
Are you implying that EM energy is renewable energy? Or is it alternative energy? Or free energy? Or conventional energy? I think you may be confused because energy is what it is -- "Energy", and just because we seperate it into neat little groups to make more sense of it cannot change this fact. Free energy is energy that is --- FREE.
QuoteYou have a one-meter-square transparent Lucite cube. There is no energy in any form being directed at the cube. In other words you are not beaming any infrared heat energy, sound energy, electromagnetic energy, etc, at the cube.
You put some kind of over unity device inside the cube and it produces a continuous form of some kind of energy seemingly out of nothingness. This output power is usable to do some kind of work. So the device could light up a LED or light bulb, produce heat, drive a mechanical load, etc.
That's it, you are talking about a device that can produce energy all by itself without any external energy sources.
I have no problem with this whatsoever because your logic is in itself non-sensical, it implies that the criteria for overunity or free energy must be an energy source we are not aware of. This does not mean anything is overunity in any way,shape or form it simply means we do not understand "where" the energy is coming from, this is not overunity it is a lack of knowledge and awareness. Here is a good example of the limitations of this kind of flawed logic, I have a simple electrical circuit in an iron vacuum sealed box inside a separate faraday cage which is inside yet another sealed wooden box to block out all light and buried under two feet of earth. The circuit is "self-powering" with no directed energy or conventional power sources of any kind (not a battery) and it pulses a small LED on and off, is this overunity?, where could the energy come from? Im 100% sure you will never get this so I will give you a hint --- most of the components can be bought from the nearest radio shack,lol.
Maybe another hint --- there is a mysterious unexplained drop in temperature near the unit not unlike that described in many supposed overunity devices.
Anyone want to take a guess? No Aether theories please as this is based solely on simple known and proven effects, that is you probably know the answer but cannot put it into the right perspective, perspective is everything. What good is information and knowledge if you can never apply it to anything useful?.
Regards
AC
Ramset:
I am aware of Thane Heins bi-toroid transformer experiment. There is a thread for that on this site. I commented a few days ago on the thread wondering if he might have been making measurement errors. He is using mains power and working with energy levels in the few milliwatt range. His device falls into that class of devices where I said any combination of active and passive components cannot produce free energy. Magnacoaster's alleged products (nobody can confirm that they have ever delivered a system) and various TPU devices all seem to be based on modulating magnetic flux in some form or other. There is no logical reason for them to work. I read on OU how some people have tried for between 10 and 25 years to do this and failed.
A couple of years ago Thane Heins supposedly had built electric motors that rerouted magnetic flux from energizing coils back into the motor (or something like that). There was a lot of buzz about that, I think there may have been a claim that he was getting mechanical over unity. I remember looking at the clips. I wonder whatever happened to that project. I think that he worked on it for years. Since we are not hearing about it, I am assuming that it went nowhere.
AC:
In the context of this discussion, then your example of a crystal radio can be called renewable energy. It has nothing to do with free energy.
My definition of free energy makes perfect sense. When you say "it implies that the criteria for overunity or free energy must be an energy source we are not aware of," that's a classic cop-out for people that allege that they have a free energy device. They say that their device is not actually a free energy device but rather the device is tapping into an "unknown source" of energy. They can't define the unknown energy source, they just allege that their device taps into it. They never explain precisely how their device is supposed to do this. There is never an opportunity to scrutinize their measurements or their device and attempts at replication are never successful.
There is an ironic twist to this scenario. Most people that post on the forums would agree that a free energy device should be open-sourced and shared with the world. However, whenever an alleged free energy device comes along it's shrouded in mystery. As a result people grope around in the murkiness and grasp at straws and invest huge amounts of time and energy in trying to figure the device out, without even knowing if it works or not. The Kapanadze and AVEC devices fall into this category.
I don't care if you say an alleged free energy device produces energy from "nothingness," for lack of a better term, or from an alleged "unknown source" of energy. That's nothing more than a game of semantics. The end result is the same: You have a black box and like magic it produces a continuous source of power. That is simple logic that anybody should be capable of understanding.
For your buried sealed box flashing an LED example, that sounds like Paul Lowrence territory. I believe that it's based on a diode tapping into the ambient Gaussian thermal noise energy. Paul can produce a few nanowatts of power with that setup and make an LED flash for a few milliseconds once per day. It has no practical use and it's another renewable energy device, it's not a free energy device.
MileHigh
MH
A few miliwatts?
Not hearing about it anymore?
take five and get caught up!!
Yes the Thane thread will get "HOT" soon!
Quote:
"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism."
Michael Brace - Tech Editor EV World
By Michael Brace
Open Access Article Originally Published: July 09, 2010
I remember when I was in college and read about the Josephson Effect for the first time. I was studying to be an Aerospace Engineer, but I had made cryogenics and cold-temperature physics a hobby and followed the science with great interest. In the '70s (about the time I was in school) Brian David Josephson discovered that electron pairs undergo quantum tunneling with zero resistance when crossing a barrier separating two [cryogenic] superconductors. He also discovered that the effect can be manipulated by varying a magnetic field at the junction where the tunneling occurs. This phenomenon was named after him. And, while current applications include the very precise standardization of the volt at the time of his discovery, I also got the impression that he wasn't too sure as to what else he could do with it.
Regardless of how insignificant his discovery was thought to have been at the time, it was a significant enough of a discovery to allow him to share the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973. As history has proven, there have been several new technologies [based on this effect] and it has proven in more ways than one to turn a profit.
So maybe Necessity isn't always the Mother of Invention and occasionally it has to work in the other direction as well. Has Thane C. Heins from Ontario Canada done the same thing; has he discovered a law of physics hereto unknown but intriguing enough to spur the imagination for some modern-day Teslas? MIT thinks so, as do a host of other legitimate laboratories. And so does Thane.
I became aware of Thane's efforts several years back because of my work in EVs (Electric Vehicles). If you had invented an electric motor/generator that can actually help drive itself, you could be sure other EV engineers [like me] might take notice of this 'device'. And that's just what Thane has done; in laymen's terms he has a 'device' that has figured out a way to take the magnetic resistant forces produced by a permanent magnet generator (aptly called EMF; Electro Motive Force) to work for, not against the generator. I'll say it again, but first an educational primer on motors and generators.
Whenever you move a magnet though coils of conductive wire you create an electrical current from which you can draw from at the ends of the wire. Conversely, whenever you run an electric current though coils of conductive wire you stimulate a magnetic field in those wire coils; this magnetic field is used to attract the magnets in a rotor to produce rotary torque. In the first case you are operating a conventional electric generator, and in the second case you are operating an electric motor. In both cases the strength of the electrical current, or of the magnetic field, depends on the strength of the complimentary component. That much we all learned in high school physics class.
However, if you went on to learn more about electric motors, you also learned that the EMF produced by generating a current in the coils of the generator normally works to slow a generator's rotor down. This magnetic field serves to repulse the very same magnets generating the current, so left unattended the rotor [with the magnets] wants to slow down when you remove the rotary torque from it. Not so, according to Thanes' work. He has figured out a way to configure the coils in his generator to switch the polarity of the EMF so that it serves to assist the rotation of the generator rather than hinder it. In effect, it becomes its own motor.
If you are scratching your head right now trying to figure out how this perfectly logical argument seems illogical, don't worry, you're not alone. Every report I read from every lab that tested his 'device' ended up pointing that out in their summary as well. They don't know why it works, or just how it does what he said it would do, only that if you asked the 'device' to provide more electrical power [through load] it would not only do so, but the rotor would speed up AND the input torque to the rotor would drop at the same time. You can see why electric car enthusiast and R&D engineers (such as myself in both cases) would be interested in Thane's discovery, as are several other companies in which he is working with to do more show-n-tells.
Be careful here...if you think about what he has done you might be tempted to say his device defies the conventional laws of physics. And (even as he admits) you might be right. But then again that's why David Josephson's 'effect' uses the word "quantum tunneling" and not "conductivity" to explain how a current passes though resistive material with no resistance. We too may need to re-define the laws of electro-mechanical physics as quantum physics has.
Now to the meat of this article: Thane has asked me re-introduce his ideas to the media in such a manner as to get most readers to grasp his discovery without dismissing it due to a hundred years of preconceived notions. Not an easy task and I told him I would probably fail just as the other journalists before me have tried [and failed]. Most failed, not only because of preconceived notions about what they learned in physics class, but because they couldn't understand the "how or why" of
However, unlike most journalists writing about technology, I am a degreed engineer with over 25 years experience as an R&D engineer with over a dozen patents covering 'devices' and methodologies that have never been seen or done before. Knowing that, you might think I would believe myself up for the task, but I don't; and for the same reasons that other journalists can't convince you (the reader): knowing what he knows about how his device operates, he can't clearly engineer his way from what he has to what it would be good for; he only has some [what he assumes to be] clearly obvious future uses but he's not 100% sure if he can get there from here without a lot more experiments and prototypes. The only problem is that path takes a lot of time and money.
As I said above, part of his challenge is finding a home for this technology, but as in all new discoveries of physics you have to define the parameters of the discovery before you can figure out where your best shot of success is. Thane has an idea of what his 'device' would be good for, seven of them as a matter of fact; anything from a pure generator to a pure electric motor and everything in between...but all un-vetted in the real world of practical uses because [from an engineering perspective] he doesn't know enough about it to design it into an engineered solution (and neither can I); we both need help here.
Couple his discoveries with his imagination and personal convictions -- for the world to go electric sooner rather than later -- you end up with a highly enthusiastic inventor who can't explain himself to the average education level of the general public (much less the technically suave ones). Add to that the consequences of not be able to engineer a good evolutionary course for the 'device' and you understand why (as Tyler Hamilton, columnist for the Toronto Star put it) "...most [people] just walk away not willing to put the time into helping Thane validate it. And why should they?" You may or may not agree with Tyler's statement, but that last part I understand. Why should they?
I think the more appropriate question here would be: What's in it for them? Unfortunately most of the general public no longer believe that the days of Dr. Jonas Salk (inventor of the polio vaccine who gave it away to mankind for free) will ever come back, and as most pharmaceutical companies will tell you, 'no doctor endorsed by us would give anything away for free; if he/she did they should be labeled as a quack.' Well, maybe I exaggerate a bit, but you get the idea.
I run a lab with over 100 dynamometers, everything from fractional horsepower to over 400 horsepower, and I offered to retest his 'device' for the umpteenth time, but unless I knew what application I was testing it for it would all be redundant and not prove to anybody else what he (and others) already know: his device does what he says it will do but that doesn't mean it will do what he thinks it can do. So there, I have tried to get our loyal readers on the same page and I hope I have succeeded.
There in lays another dilemma: how does one convince others that the age old axiom "If it sounds too good to be true it isn't" may not apply here?
Unfortunately this brings me back to my other reason for writing this article: how to explain to Thane (or any other person for that matter) that in today's MBA -- driven world of 'show me the money first' until he actually defines his 'device' for at least one profitable application, and prove it to the experts that his device works in that application, you can't expect anyone (or any profit-driven company) to help you 'validate' your ideas (much less believe them)...well, anyone except other innovators who have earned a living with their noodle instead of OPM (Other People's Money). But I understand he has found some of them already.
Thane tells me that he has NDAs with several companies and that he is doing just that: making a prototype device that is application specific. Furthermore, he's not asking me to help him looking for investors; he thinks he has enough of those. He asked me to write this article because he's hoping to change the public perception of his discovery so that two other changes could occur: the economy of the world needs to end its dependence on oil sooner rather than later and you need to change your beliefs in the laws of physics. And from what we both know he will never accomplish the first feat in a timely enough manner without accomplishing the second one as well. I for one hope he succeeds on both counts.
Am I right, or did I miss something? More importantly, was I in the least bit successful? Did I open your mind to the possibilities? For his sake--and all of ours-- I hope so. So you tell me...
the 'device' nor his visions for its future
The BITT has been entered into the GE Ecomagination-----------------------------------------------------
Challenge. Here is part of the entry.
GE Ecomagination Challenge BITT Entry
The Bi-Toroid Transformer (BITT) is a new type of transformer which acts as a magnetic diode and isolates the source from the load. The BITT has the capacity to use virtually 100% Reactive Power while delivering 100% Real Power to the load.
The BITT employs two secondary coils and two low reluctance flux path routes which allow Secondary Coil Back EMF induced flux to be diverted away from the Primary Coil's Core. By diverting the secondary BEMF induced flux away from the primary core, the load power factor does not change from NO load to FULL load.
In addition, because the secondary BEMF induced fluxes follow the low reluctance flux path route around and away from the primary coil's core – there is no flux coupling back through the primary coil and its impedance does not drop, therefore the NO load excitation current cannot change(increase). Both of the secondary coils' ON load BEMF induced fluxes, follow the low reluctance flux path route around the primary coil and into the adjacent secondary coil thereby maintaining the flux required to sustain the power across the load.
Early third party testing of the BITT (by Defence Research and Development Canada data enclosed) have shown it operating well above 100% efficiency - in the region of 450 – 2700%. Because the BITT primary current does not change from NO load to FULL load, the primary coil does not heat up and resistive power losses due to heat are negligible.
If the BITT we employed in grid power lines at staggered intervals the transmission power line losses could be reduced to virtually zero. The BITT could be employed in household appliances to reduce the load on the grid. Currently the BITT is being scaled down for laptop computers as a battery charge extender. The BITT is now being developed and licensed in Canada, USA, Brazil, Europe and Asia.
Cheers
Thane
Thane C. Heins
President - Potential +/- Difference Inc.
613.795.1602
-------------------
PS
The link to the TEST DATA is above
Ramset:
I wish Thane Heins the best and it would be wonderful if he really has something and it goes into production. It has that "too good to be true" feel to it for me personally, but let's hope something good comes of his stuff. Even though apparently some organizations have verified his claims, there is something in the narrative that is not rock solid. I still doesn't smell quite right to me.
I know Thane does not claim to be an expert, but at the same time he has been working in this domain for a couple of years. I remarked how I found it unusual that he took some readings for the Bi-Toroid Transformer that were at the extreme lower measuring limit of his digital meter without commenting on the greatly decreased accuracy of those readings. Anybody that works with digital meters for a few years should be aware of this.
I find this an unusual statement from Michael Brace:
QuoteI run a lab with over 100 dynamometers, everything from fractional horsepower to over 400 horsepower, and I offered to retest his 'device' for the umpteenth time, but unless I knew what application I was testing it for it would all be redundant
If he was to test a Heins generator configuration then he would know if the Heins generator would be capable of outperforming all other similar generators. Ditto for a Heins motor configuration. There are limitless applications for generators and motors. I am being a bit picky here but this guy is supposed to be an expert in the field. If the Heins devices really perform as claimed then Thane's company should show up at the top three annual trade shows for motors and generators with working prototypes. If he is real then Black and Decker might put his motors in their power tools. All that you need to do is pay for a 10" x 10" booth and show your wares.
Anyway the BITT is the big deal right now. I will check the other threads on the other forums from time to time. It also looks like replicating the device should not be too difficult.
MileHigh
@ramset
Quote"When we finally understand what Thane Heins has discovered, we likely will have to rewrite the laws of electromagnetism."
Michael Brace - Tech Editor EV World
Im not so sure about this statement, when Thane started posting in the first threads concerning this technology I posted him and told him exactly how he was getting the results he did. He confirmed that I was exactly correct in how the device operated, I knew this because Nikola Tesla was doing the exact same thing and I had built and tested many of Tesla's patents in regards to this technology years prior. I think when the truth comes out Thane should get the credit he deserves as a great inventor and if I am correct about Thane he is going to plug Tesla's name every chance he get's because I think he has character and is a good man with his heart in the right place. Personally I find it all rather comical, all the experts running around like chicken little and they think the sky is falling, LOL, I imagine Thane finds their antics pretty amusing as well, I also think that when the experts finally understand what is actually happening they are going to be embarrassed to no end that they could have completely missed something so simple and obvious. The question which comes to mind for me is --- What do we really know when we have not even mastered the basics of nature? No, when they know the truth our laws of electromagnetism will be just fine and it will only reinforce what we already know.
Regards
AC
Thanks for your reply fellows,
I also believe Thane to be a man of "impeccable moral Fiber"
And wish you fellows would look in on the SIMPLE REPLICATION that is taking shape
and share your comments over there, or over here[in the appropriate thread[MH]]
I'm quite excited to actually get to see the future!
Thanks
Fella's
Chet
Quote from: ramset on 2010.10.22, 02:51:42
Thanks for your reply fellows,
I also believe Thane to be a man of "impeccable moral Fiber"
And wish you fellows would look in on the SIMPLE REPLICATION that is taking shape
and share your comments over there, or over here[in the appropriate thread[MH]]
Chet,
Thanks for your comments. I just spent half an hour racking my brain trying to visualize how the magnetic flux flows and the results may surprise you. I will post it all in the Bi-toroid thread.
It doesn't look good, but on the other hand I could be wrong. It can be hard to visualize these things. I am going to go and write it up. I also propose a simple test to see if what I think is going on is correct or not. It would be really appreciated if somebody could do the simple test.
MileHigh
MH
I appreciate you giving this "a good think"!
I must say that while Thane may not have been an "expert"at the onset[hard to be an expert at something no one has done[in recent times]]
By this time [today] I would be absolutely FLOORED if you came up with a senario that he has not considered!
The boy has been in some brawls,with the best of the best! and NOTHING builds those muscles [knowledge] like Exercise!!
And has the reputation of a univercity behind him.
Your views must be respected, as they represent what he is trying to change!
Thank you once again.
Chet
Hey Chet:
Well we can always hope that I am wrong! Like I said, it's hard on the brain to do this. The key is the test. When you think about it, it makes sense to ALWAYS have a "flux sensor" coil wrapped around the OuterO. It lets you know what kind of action is going on in the OuterO ring.
MileHigh
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.10.19, 00:03:51
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpocch9.pdf
Another energy source has been proposed. See page 26 / 42 in this pdf.
So, per Hawking, a "stressful situation" allows energy to just "come into being"? I'll take that.
The voltage doubling effect that Aspden discusses as an effect of the Aether, has the same effect as the reflected pulse at the end of an open transmission line. Using a piece of coax as a capacitor/transmission line, how could you determined the real cause of the voltage doubling?
The answer to the question was given us a very long time
ago. We seem unwilling to accept it.
All that has come into existence was meant to be.
Our very limited mental capabilities prevent us from
comprehending the purpose.
In time we shall all understand,. This story is far from
over...
Thanks for this thread -- I would like to see a definition for OU and for "free energy". I have worked in alternative energy for decades, mostly fusion and solar research. Teaching and research at two big laboratories and two universities. Emeritus Professor of Physics. (but that doesn't make me "better" than you!)
Now I'm retired, but very interested in OU and FE -- having two friends who have strongly urged me to look at this field of research.
But let me (as a newbie to this OU field) take a stab at a definition, which I think is an important starting point:
Free energy as I would define it does not seek to violate the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy or any other law of physics. Rather, the idea is to extract energy from a non-conventional (perhaps not fully understood) source -- not from any chemical reaction nor from stored-mechanical energy (like a coiled-spring) nor from fission or geo- or solar-energy (as wonderful as those conventional sources may be).
Overunity = output power clearly exceeds input power, that is, Pout / Pin >1, for a free-energy source as defined above.
I am open-minded, I think, but not convinced that OU has been achieved. I think it can be achieved, but that's basically just a hunch at this point...
I'm willing to learn, and to contribute to this research if I can. I prefer to remain anonymous for the time being (thanks).
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.27, 03:03:59
But let me (as a newbie to this OU field) take a stab at a definition, which I think is an important starting point:
Free energy as I would define it does not seek to violate the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy or any other law of physics. Rather, the idea is to extract energy from a non-conventional (perhaps not fully understood) source -- not from any chemical reaction nor from stored-mechanical energy (like a coiled-spring) nor from fission or geo- or solar-energy (as wonderful as those conventional sources may be).
Overunity = output power clearly exceeds input power, that is, Pout / Pin >1, for a free-energy source as defined above.
I must agree with that.
Quote
I prefer to remain anonymous for the time being (thanks).
Remaining anonymous is a good thing when looking into the fringe of things. TRUST ME O0
Even an attempt at brewing a soup with odd ingredients and a dash of wider understanding can land you in Hell's Kitchen.
Welcome to the forum :)
Thanks, WW... I'm climbing the learning curve right now but may be able to contribute more as I learn.
Already an edit to my stab at a definition:
Free energy as I would define it does not seek to violate the Law of Conservation of Mass-Energy or any other law of physics. Rather, the idea is to extract energy from a non-conventional (perhaps not fully understood) source -- not from any chemical reaction nor from stored-mechanical energy (like a coiled-spring) nor from fission or geothermal or solar-energy (as wonderful as those conventional sources may be). Hot or cold nuclear fusion or the earth's magnetic or gravitational fields -- harnessed for power production -- would fit this definition for "free energy."
Indeed, the term "Free Energy" is not a "good" term for this field anymore, esp. in light of the recent trend in renewable resources etc.
"Free Energy" now means energy that we did not have to pay for, but is considered "conventional" in origin and from known science. Examples include: Geothermal, wind, solar, etc.
What we are mainly interested in here however, is overunity, or COP>1. Energy from unknown sources that contributes to an overall Pout/Pin>1.
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on 2010.12.27, 03:57:02
Indeed, the term "Free Energy" is not a "good" term for this field anymore, esp. in light of the recent trend in renewable resources etc.
"Free Energy" now means energy that we did not have to pay for, but is considered "conventional" in origin and from known science. Examples include: Geothermal, wind, solar, etc.
What we are mainly interested in here however, is overunity, or COP>1. Energy from unknown sources that contributes to an overall Pout/Pin>1.
.99
OK, I understand that. But what happens when we figure out where the energy from the "unknown source" comes from? such as from the earth's magnetic field or dark energy-- Is such a previously-unknown power source no longer "free energy" or "OU"?
A bit more on some definitions used for describing gains found in a system is referenced here in the Power and Creed (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=8.msg29#msg29) document.
.99
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.27, 12:48:40
OK, I understand that. But what happens when we figure out where the energy from the "unknown source" comes from? such as from the earth's magnetic field or dark energy-- Is such a previously-unknown power source no longer "free energy" or "OU"?
I suppose it could still be considered "Free Energy" in any case, however, in the known simple cases I gave as examples, we do not have to apply any exotic process to coax the energy from the hereto "unknown".
Extracting energy from the ZPF (aether) is the ultimate goal, and evidently, this is not an easy task to accomplish.
.99
@Physicsprof
QuoteOK, I understand that. But what happens when we figure out where the energy from the "unknown source" comes from? such as from the earth's magnetic field or dark energy-- Is such a previously-unknown power source no longer "free energy" or "OU"?
I think that to some extent the issue is circular, for instance if I have a free standing closed box and it extracts usable amounts of power from an "unknown source" then most might call it a OU device or free energy. However what if I alone knew that the energy does in fact come from the random fluctuation of charged states which ultimately leads us to the cause for the states which is the sun or cosmic radiation. We are then left with the question of whether my knowing the source makes this device a "renewable" energy device because it is little more than a glorified solar cell which acts indirectly or a free energy device. It would seem to me that the only difference between free energy and renewable energy is governed by who understands the source of energy which seems rather silly and unscientific in my opinion.
Imagine that, I could show you a "free energy/OU" device and then disclose the source at which point it would magically transform into a renewable energy device, lol. This is why I tend to make the distinction between renewable and free energy as a function of time and position. "Free energy" is available everywhere, at any time, under any conditions while "renewable energy" relies solely on the conditions external to it. Maybe we could just say that Free Energy is an unlimited, unrestricted form of renewable energy.
We could also say this relates to our perspective, we are still not unlike primitive man who would "hunt and gather" and we do this with most all forms of energy but modern man should understand that what we call energy is everywhere and there should be no need to hunt and gather anything, we should know better by now if in fact we are modern man.
Regards
AC
I keep dipping into this thread and dipping out. Anyway. I'll try and give my tuppence worth. Free energy I thought was energy that was free of grid supplies. In which case solar - wind and so on - ALL FREE.
Over unity is the condition whereby more energy is dissipated - wherever - than was supplied.
And the forces are still the source of all energy. But dark energy is a new force and - as yet - does not carry the unequivocal support of mainstream. If and when it does then we'll have sanction for this drive of ours to get as much OU as possible because this new force absolutely caters to this possibility. Roll on Dark Energy - or aether energy - or whatever it's called. But right now - the experts in dark energy DO NOT CONSIDER THAT IT'S ZPE. They're still looking for the invisible non standard particle. LOL. How one is meant to find something that is entirely invisible is the puzzle.
free energy: energy you don't have to pay for (an initial outlay of cash for the device is probably required, but no further payments after that, except for maintenance)
Over Unity: a horrible term that means more energy out than you put in, or "something for nothing"
Petroleum could be considered "over unity", but it sure isn't "free".
Of course if you own the generator and sell the energy, then it is no longer free.
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.27, 17:02:02
LOL. How one is meant to find something that is entirely invisible is the puzzle.
Haven't we traveled that path before? Electromagnetics comes to mind. We couldn't see it (many still can't see it or assume they know what is going on by looking at effects) but see it now. We need the 'lodestone' or 'amber' or whateveritis.
History tells us that finding new things always starts with an attempt to use or explain a simple curiosity. Fire, lodestone, amber, lightning.... I suppose we should look for the unexplained and try to explain them. Maybe we'll find the next lodestone ;)
As far as tags go:
Free is something that doesn't cost me money or any other ill effect. We have wind power locally. It is not free.
'Over unity' is a poor descriptor and an oxymoron, IMO.
It would be best if we could identify any new or better used source of energy. Identification and understanding is a requirement before control and use.
Until then, I'll worry about classifying the currently unknown or incompletely understood source of energy after it allows me to go off-grid. :)
When it happens, you can bet your boots some corporation will find a way to bottle it for a hefty mark-up and limit access by the public.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.12.27, 17:32:51
free energy: energy you don't have to pay for (an initial outlay of cash for the device is probably required, but no further payments after that, except for maintenance)
Over Unity: a horrible term that means more energy out than you put in, or "something for nothing"
Petroleum could be considered "over unity", but it sure isn't "free".
Of course if you own the generator and sell the energy, then it is no longer free.
LOL. Right on Grumps. ;D
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.12.27, 17:34:21
It would be best if we could identify any new or better used source of energy. Identification and understanding is a requirement before control and use.
Until then, I'll worry about classifying the currently unknown or incompletely understood source of energy after it allows me to go off-grid. :)
When it happens, you can bet your boots some corporation will find a way to bottle it for a hefty mark-up and limit access by the public.
That won't happen if there is a general understanding of what it is. Or one hopes not. If it proves to be highly complex to implement and if there are massively complex manufacturing requirements or if understanding what goes on is as difficult as all hell - then we're all doomed. But if it's that simple that any clutz can understand what gives - then there's boundless hope. And my suspicion is that it is really that simple.
Rosemary
Quote from: aetherevarising on 2010.12.27, 17:46:35
That won't happen if there is a general understanding of what it is. Or one hopes not. If it proves to be highly complex to implement and if there are massively complex manufacturing requirements or if understanding what goes on is as difficult as all hell - then we're all doomed. But if it's that simple that any clutz can understand what gives - then there's boundless hope. And my suspicion is that it is really that simple.
Rosemary
I hope you're right, Rose.
A great goal is to make the new technology readily available. I suppose that cottage industries will spring up amongst members of this community, building the power-devices for individual homes, getting people quickly off-grid. Even self-contained electric cars... OK, I'm dreaming a bit, but it is my hope.
And SOMEHOW keeping the new technology out of the CONTROL of the industrial/military/banking/oil complex -- THAT is worth discussing, how we accomplish these goals.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2010.12.27, 19:16:37
I hope you're right, Rose.
A great goal is to make the new technology readily available. I suppose that cottage industries will spring up amongst members of this community, building the power-devices for individual homes, getting people quickly off-grid. Even self-contained electric cars... OK, I'm dreaming a bit, but it is my hope.
And SOMEHOW keeping the new technology out of the CONTROL of the industrial/military/banking/oil complex -- THAT is worth discussing, how we accomplish these goals.
Indeed. Couldn't agree more in fact.
Kindest regards,
Rosie