What is over unity?

[Fraser]

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?

[Room3327]

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.

[Fraser]

...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.

[BEP]

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.

[MileHigh]

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

[giantkiller]

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.

[Allcanadian]

@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

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.

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

[Grumpy]

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:

The 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...

[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.

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

[Grumpy]

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?

[MileHigh]

@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:

An 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

[Grumpy]

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

[MileHigh]

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

[Grumpy]

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.

[Allcanadian]

@Grumpy

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.

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

[MileHigh]

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

[wattsup]

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.

[MileHigh]

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

[Grumpy]

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?

[MileHigh]

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

[Allcanadian]

@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

[Grumpy]

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.

[Fraser]

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.

[Allcanadian]

@milehigh

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.

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

[MileHigh]

AC:

To quote myself:

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.

Your example doesn't count because it falls within the class of renewable energy sources.

I 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:

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.

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