Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?

[partzman]

There are many preconceived ideas and notions regarding how excess energy can be generated.......or not.  To really understand how such a task may be accomplished, one must first understand how our electrical components interact with the aether.  A simple coil for example.  Is there a difference between dynamic and steady states in an inductor?  If so, how can these differences be utilized?

Thinking outside the box is mandatory and this box includes formal education.  They don't teach what they don't want you to know!

Regards,
Pm

[Floor]

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                            Excerpts From Wikipedia   


"Energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions,
which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.  The joule is the SI unit
of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of
moving it 1 meter against a force of 1 newton.[1]"

Below are some excerpts from the above definitiion (February 2016). These words are the
subjects of other Wikipedia topic excerpts.

The "SI"  is le Système International d'Unités or the International System of Units.

PHYSICAL PROPERTY: "A physical property is any  property that is measurable, whose
value describes a state of a physical system."

STATE "In classical mechanics, state is a complete description of a system in terms of
parameters such as positions and momentums at a particular moment in time

PHYSICAL SYSTEM : "a physical system is the portion of the physical universe chosen
for analysis.  Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in
analysis is ignored except for its affects on the system. The cut between system and
the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible."

OBJECT: "In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body
or object) is a collection of matter with some common attributes, most important, the
spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to
a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media."

TRANSFERABLE: "In the physical sciences, an energy transfer or 'energy exchange' from
one system to another is said to occur when an amount of energy crosses the boundary
between them, thus increasing the energy content of one system while decreasing the
energy content of the other system by the same amount."

BOUNDARY:  (from the Wikipedia topic titled system and the sub heading system concepts)
"System theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. We scope a
system by defining its boundary this means choosing which entities are inside the system
and which are outside – part of the environment. We then make simplified representations
(models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior.
These models may define the structure and/or the behavior of the system."

MATTER: "Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see definitions below). The term has
often been used in reference to a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass. Matter
is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable
physical objects. [1][2]"

FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS :  "Also called fundamental forces or interactive forces,
are modeled in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems,
evolving over time, that are not (beneficially) reducible to relations among more basic
entities (at prevalent energy scales).  Four fundamental interactions are conventionally
recognized on empirical evidence: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and
weak nuclear."

CONVERTED : "Energy transformation or energy conversion is the process of changing
one form of energy to another."


                                                           SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                        Omissions from Wikipedia

The words destroyed and created are not topics for articles in Wikipedia.  However these
words are frequently used in many of Wikipedia's science articles.  Some small and
exemplary accounting of their usage is given below

The word destroyed is used 3 times in the article "Matter", 6 times in the article "Mass Energy
equivalence", 7 times in the article "Energy", 1 time in the article "Energy transformation"
and 3 times in the article titled "Mass".

The word created is used 6 times in the article "Matter", 2 times in the article "Mass
Energy equivalence", 6 times in the article "Energy",  2 times in the article "Energy
transformation" and 1 time in the article titled "Mass".
 
The online Oxford dictionary was lacking these definitions (in the context of physics) as well.
      ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   

                       For so long as one is willing to change the definition of energy
                                         one can also "prove" that energy is conserved

The following brief paragraph is a quotation from the Wikipedia article the
"Conservation of energy".  It is excerpted from a section of that article which is
titled Noether's theorem.

"Since any time-varying system can be embedded within a larger time-invariant system
(with the exception of the universe), conservation can always be recovered by a suitable
re-definition of what energy is and extending the scope of your system."

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                           Excerpts From Wikipedia   

(The following paragraph is also an excerpt from the Wikipedia article titled "Matter").

"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy
(known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

                                                                      ENERGY                                                                       

Energy, what a concept !  What it is essentially, I have never found an explanation of, and
I doubt that anyone is actually capable of making such an explanation.  It may be that we
possess neither the words nor the understanding for such an explanation. 

The concept of energy, for the most part is derived from observation of the physical changes
that occur when energy is transferred between two bodies or systems.  It might be said
that energy has only ever been defined through describing the affects it has.

The affects energy will have when it is expressed or transferred between two objects has
been studied, measured and recorded, with extreme accuracy and precision, countless times
and in innumerable ways.  A great deal is known about energy in this respect. 

Following are examinations of the definitions of energy and work from two of my old
dictionaries.

Webster's New World Dictionary 1956

energy: the capacity for doing work and overcoming resistance

work: the  transference of force from one body, or system to another, measured by the
product of the force and the amount of displacement in the line of force.

The American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948

energy: the property of a system which diminishes, when the system does work on
any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done.

work: the transference of energy from one body or system to another.

It is interesting to note that the Webster's definitions, energy and work are defined by
each other.  Except that the word force is used in place of the word energy in the definition
of work.  Note that a force is an expression of energy that is causing any object to undergo
a change, in its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.

The American College definition of energy says that energy is a property of a system.  This
is an interesting beginning for the definition, in light of  the fact that any physical system
is composed entirely of energy, 100% so.  Matter is composed entirely of energy and I
think that probably energy is also.  Although perhaps energy is composed of some sort of
information that organizes it ?  Even if this is so, the dictionary definitions stand unaffected. 

So to continue.......

energy: "the property of a system"
                  Therefore energy is the property of energy or, energy is the property of it's self.

                      "which diminishes"

Energy is a property that diminishes.  We can safely assume that this diminishing is not
caused by the destruction of energy (else all hell should break loose).  It must therefore be
that this diminishing is either transformation or transfer. I'm guessing that transference is
the cause of the diminishing and will interpret it as such. 

                    which transfers

                    "when this system"
                     when this energy

                    "does work"
                     transfers energy
 
                   "on any other system"
                    to any other energy

                   "by an amount equal to the work so done"
                    by an amount equal to the energy so transferred

And now the complete interpretation.

Energy is the property of energy that transfers, when this energy transfers energy to any
other energy by an amount equal to the energy so transferred.

The only questions I'm left with at this point are:

1 Does it require an expenditure of energy in order for energy to transfer it's self ?
2 Is transference the expenditure of energy or is it rather that, energy IS transference ?

Definitions of energy by the use of terminology such as "fundamental interactions", make
the rabbit hole deeper, but the same questions remain unanswered.  An interaction is an
energy exchange, even if it is "fundamental", and even if it does violate conservation.


...........   ...........     ................


Fundamentally, energy is a concept and an abstraction.  As such it cannot be measured. 
It can only be derived or inferred and most certainly it cannot be conserved. 

Force and displacement can be measured.  I find, for example, in magnet interactions
(in which work input is equal to work output) no indications as to why it should be
considered as absolute that magnets can do no net work, but rather quite the contrary.

Neither do I see any reason why two magnets causing net work would be a violation of the
"law" of conservation of "energy".  I think rather instead, conservation is mostly
misunderstood.  Almost universally and certainly automatically, specific projections and
assumptions are made which are not actually inherent within Newton's laws of motion nor
that bastard child, which the law of conservation of energy is.

There is a thing which we call a vacuum.  There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Within a vacuum chamber the odds are very high, that there are at least some few atoms
of gas remaining.  Within a vacuum chamber we find also, that there are radio waves,
magnetic fields, gravity, other things, and possibly dark matter or even zero point energy
as well.  There is no place known to mankind in which in can be demonstrated that there is "nothing". 

How then is it, that science should even conceive of it, consider its existence as real
or consider that "nothing" could have any effect upon or significance to anything that is
real ? 

The idea of nothingness is rather like a notion from a child's fairy tale, except perhaps that the
tale of nothingness is seldom looked at objectively and has no moral. 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed ?  The idea that energy
or that energy as matter can either spring from "nothing" or become "nothing" is from
any truly scientific perspective silly.  It is barely merits consideration because .....
                   there is no such thing as "nothing" !
How then is it that this seemingly key scientific concept (conservation) hangs from such a
shabby frame work ? 
                          Conservation's contribution to Newton's observations is as nothing ?.


The only functions the  "laws" of conservation have are as:

             1. Newton's observations.
             2. distraction from the one of the few facts known, which is that all answers lead to yet         
                 more questions, or else ..... they lead to dogma.

                             smile .......

[stivep]

There are many preconceived ideas and notions regarding how excess energy can be generated.......or not. 
To really understand how such a task may be accomplished, one must first understand how our electrical components interact with the aether. 
Thinking outside the box is mandatory and this box includes formal education. 
They don't teach what they don't want you to know!
Regards,
Pm

My dear friend.
Eather/aether  doesn't exist . Never existed  and will never exist. it is outdated concept.
explained here :
https://youtu.be/7Ldus3AQSpE
WHAT IS TRUE IN  Free Energy
_____________________
My tests led me to  this video :
https://youtu.be/He5xQOJHlrU
Part 2 The Corum and Zenneck Surface Wave guide to  energy transfer
it will send you to  few more videos too if  interested.

A simple coil for example.  Is there a difference between dynamic and steady states in an inductor? 
If so, how can these differences be utilized?

https://www.murata.com/~/media/webrenewal/tool/library/spectre/note_dynamic-model_i101e.ashx?la=en-us

another way to look at it is  :
Concept of Transient State and Steady State
_{after some time, i.e. when coil voltage drop is equal to applied voltage, then current flowing through the circuit is constant
as inductor voltage is zero which means rate of change of current is zero. This state is called Steady State.}

from all properties of Transient  state   the important is :
transient time:
it is the time it takes for a coil as complex  reactive  circuit  having imaginary  LC+physical R  to change from one steady state to the next.
the imaginary value  of LC is  inductive and capacitive reactance of the coil as the components of total impedance equation.
_________________________
Wesley

[AlienGrey]

Wesley if there is no such thing as zero point energy, then how or what did you generate in Lithuanian experiment
how or where did the energy come from your group generated and how come Bedini, Adrian Gustov, Akula and others
were reported as murdered over there inventions, explain that one please 

[Floor]

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                            Excerpts From Wikipedia   


"Energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions,
which can be converted in form but not created or destroyed.  The joule is the SI unit
of energy, based on the amount transferred to an object by the mechanical work of
moving it 1 meter against a force of 1 newton.[1]"

Below are some excerpts from the above definitiion (February 2016). These words are the
subjects of other Wikipedia topic excerpts.

The "SI"  is le Système International d'Unités or the International System of Units.

PHYSICAL PROPERTY: "A physical property is any  property that is measurable, whose
value describes a state of a physical system."

STATE "In classical mechanics, state is a complete description of a system in terms of
parameters such as positions and momentums at a particular moment in time

PHYSICAL SYSTEM : "a physical system is the portion of the physical universe chosen
for analysis.  Everything outside the system is known as the environment, which in
analysis is ignored except for its affects on the system. The cut between system and
the world is a free choice, generally made to simplify the analysis as much as possible."

OBJECT: "In physics, a physical body or physical object (sometimes simply called a body
or object) is a collection of matter with some common attributes, most important, the
spatial location. Examples of models of physical bodies include, but are not limited to
a particle, several interacting smaller bodies (particles or other), and continuous media."

TRANSFERABLE: "In the physical sciences, an energy transfer or 'energy exchange' from
one system to another is said to occur when an amount of energy crosses the boundary
between them, thus increasing the energy content of one system while decreasing the
energy content of the other system by the same amount."

BOUNDARY:  (from the Wikipedia topic titled system and the sub heading system concepts)
"System theory views the world as a complex system of interconnected parts. We scope a
system by defining its boundary this means choosing which entities are inside the system
and which are outside – part of the environment. We then make simplified representations
(models) of the system in order to understand it and to predict or impact its future behavior.
These models may define the structure and/or the behavior of the system."

MATTER: "Matter is a poorly defined term in science (see definitions below). The term has
often been used in reference to a substance (often a particle) that has rest mass. Matter
is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable
physical objects. [1][2]"

FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS :  "Also called fundamental forces or interactive forces,
are modeled in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems,
evolving over time, that are not (beneficially) reducible to relations among more basic
entities (at prevalent energy scales).  Four fundamental interactions are conventionally
recognized on empirical evidence: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and
weak nuclear."

CONVERTED : "Energy transformation or energy conversion is the process of changing
one form of energy to another."


                                                           SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                        Omissions from Wikipedia

The words destroyed and created are not topics for articles in Wikipedia.  However these
words are frequently used in many of Wikipedia's science articles.  Some small and
exemplary accounting of their usage is given below

The word destroyed is used 3 times in the article "Matter", 6 times in the article "Mass Energy
equivalence", 7 times in the article "Energy", 1 time in the article "Energy transformation"
and 3 times in the article titled "Mass".

The word created is used 6 times in the article "Matter", 2 times in the article "Mass
Energy equivalence", 6 times in the article "Energy",  2 times in the article "Energy
transformation" and 1 time in the article titled "Mass".

The online Oxford dictionary was lacking these definitions (in the context of physics) as well.
      ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   

                       For so long as one is willing to change the definition of energy
                                         one can also "prove" that energy is conserved

The following brief paragraph is a quotation from the Wikipedia article the
"Conservation of energy".  It is excerpted from a section of that article which is
titled Noether's theorem.

"Since any time-varying system can be embedded within a larger time-invariant system
(with the exception of the universe), conservation can always be recovered by a suitable
re-definition of what energy is and extending the scope of your system."

                                                              SOME DEFINITIONS
                                                           Excerpts From Wikipedia   

(The following paragraph is also an excerpt from the Wikipedia article titled "Matter").

"Albert Einstein showed that ultimately all matter is capable of being converted to energy
(known as mass-energy equivalence) by the famous formula E = mc2,"

                                                                      ENERGY                                                                       

Energy, what a concept !  What it is essentially, I have never found an explanation of, and
I doubt that anyone is actually capable of making such an explanation.  It may be that we
possess neither the words nor the understanding for such an explanation.

The concept of energy, for the most part is derived from observation of the physical changes
that occur when energy is transferred between two bodies or systems.  It might be said
that energy has only ever been defined through describing the affects it has.

The affects energy will have when it is expressed or transferred between two objects has
been studied, measured and recorded, with extreme accuracy and precision, countless times
and in innumerable ways.  A great deal is known about energy in this respect.

Following are examinations of the definitions of energy and work from two of my old
dictionaries.

Webster's New World Dictionary 1956

energy: the capacity for doing work and overcoming resistance

work: the  transference of force from one body, or system to another, measured by the
product of the force and the amount of displacement in the line of force.

The American College Dictionary 1947 / 1948

energy: the property of a system which diminishes, when the system does work on
any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done.

work: the transference of energy from one body or system to another.

It is interesting to note that the Webster's definitions, energy and work are defined by
each other.  Except that the word force is used in place of the word energy in the definition
of work.  Note that a force is an expression of energy that is causing any object to undergo
a change, in its movement, direction, or geometrical construction.

The American College definition of energy says that energy is a property of a system.  This
is an interesting beginning for the definition, in light of  the fact that any physical system
is composed entirely of energy, 100% so.  Matter is composed entirely of energy and I
think that probably energy is also.  Although perhaps energy is composed of some sort of
information that organizes it ?  Even if this is so, the dictionary definitions stand unaffected.

So to continue.......

energy: "the property of a system"
                  Therefore energy is the property of energy or, energy is the property of it's self.

                      "which diminishes"

Energy is a property that diminishes.  We can safely assume that this diminishing is not
caused by the destruction of energy (else all hell should break loose).  It must therefore be
that this diminishing is either transformation or transfer. I'm guessing that transference is
the cause of the diminishing and will interpret it as such.

                    which transfers

                    "when this system"
                     when this energy

                    "does work"
                     transfers energy

                   "on any other system"
                    to any other energy

                   "by an amount equal to the work so done"
                    by an amount equal to the energy so transferred

And now the complete interpretation.

Energy is the property of energy that transfers, when this energy transfers energy to any
other energy by an amount equal to the energy so transferred.

The only questions I'm left with at this point are:

1 Does it require an expenditure of energy in order for energy to transfer it's self ?
2 Is transference the expenditure of energy or is it rather that, energy IS transference ?

Definitions of energy by the use of terminology such as "fundamental interactions", make
the rabbit hole deeper, but the same questions remain unanswered.  An interaction is an
energy exchange, even if it is "fundamental", and even if it does violate conservation.


...........   ...........     ................


Fundamentally, energy is a concept and an abstraction.  As such it cannot be measured.
It can only be derived or inferred and most certainly it cannot be conserved.

Force and displacement can be measured.  I find, for example, in magnet interactions
(in which work input is equal to work output) no indications as to why it should be
considered as absolute that magnets can do no net work, but rather quite the contrary.

Neither do I see any reason why two magnets causing net work would be a violation of the
"law" of conservation of "energy".  I think rather instead, conservation is mostly
misunderstood.  Almost universally and certainly automatically, specific projections and
assumptions are made which are not actually inherent within Newton's laws of motion nor
that bastard child, which the law of conservation of energy is.

There is a thing which we call a vacuum.  There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum.
Within a vacuum chamber the odds are very high, that there are at least some few atoms
of gas remaining.  Within a vacuum chamber we find also, that there are radio waves,
magnetic fields, gravity, other things, and possibly dark matter or even zero point energy
as well.  There is no place known to mankind in which in can be demonstrated that there is "nothing".

How then is it, that science should even conceive of it, consider its existence as real
or consider that "nothing" could have any effect upon or significance to anything that is
real ?

The idea of nothingness is rather like a notion from a child's fairy tale, except perhaps that the
tale of nothingness is seldom looked at objectively and has no moral.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed ?  The idea that energy
or that energy as matter can either spring from "nothing" or become "nothing" is from
any truly scientific perspective silly.  It is barely merits consideration because .....
                   there is no such thing as "nothing" !
How then is it that this seemingly key scientific concept (conservation) hangs from such a
shabby frame work ?
                          Conservation's contribution to Newton's observations is as nothing ?.


The only functions the  "laws" of conservation have are as:

             1. Newton's observations.
             2. distraction from the one of the few facts known, which is that all answers lead to yet         
                 more questions, or else ..... they lead to dogma.

                             smile .......