PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-29, 16:44:19
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: What is over unity?  (Read 26712 times)
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
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!
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@milehigh
Quote
Your 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.

Quote
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.

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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
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
« Last Edit: 2010-10-22, 01:28:51 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
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



   
Group: Guest
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:

Quote
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

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
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
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
 
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4045
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
   
Group: Guest
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
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
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?
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3055
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...


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
  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).



   
Group: Guest

 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  :)
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
 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."
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3017
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"?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
A bit more on some definitions used for describing gains found in a system is referenced here in the Power and Creed  document.

.99


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
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


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
@Physicsprof
Quote
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 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


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Group: Guest
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.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3948
tExB=qr
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.
   
Group: Guest
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.
   
Group: Guest
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
   
Group: Guest


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







   
Pages: 1 [2] 3
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-29, 16:44:19