Has anyone here constructed an overunity system that works?

[lancaIV]

I do not understand the contradiction !


Beside e=hv=hc/λ


we have E = mc2  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence         


( not E=Mc2 ) because            m result from = M1 ( mass M before acceleration) -M2 ( mass "virtual" lost during acceleration)


                                           denomination :    Relativistic mass



Clearly we work with positive and negative force or energy arrows,ac-/de-celerating  !



"Gedankenexperiment"  : physics-experimental Ueberlichtgeschwindigkeit and Effekt
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25C3%259Cberlichtgeschwindigkeit


At the University of Cologne , which has meanwhile been checked several times by other institutions, it has been proven that the quantum mechanical tunneling of photons can lead to effects that some researchers interpret as superluminal velocities. However, the interpretations of these observations are currently still controversial.


When measuring quantum mechanically entangled particles, information seems to be transmitted instantaneously between the particles (i.e. without a time difference) (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect, or EPR effect for short ). However, it is not possible to use this effect for communication at faster than light speeds.


In September 2011, the OPERA collaboration on Gran Sasso reported that they had found indications that neutrinos had moved faster than light. However, a new measurement by ICARUS has shown agreement with the speed of light, whereby the OPERA result is very likely to be refuted. See Neutrino Velocity Measurements for more details .

[Ilya Tsimbaluk]

In fact, Umov wrote this formula, then this coefficient changed and Hevside ude set 1 as the coefficient, which ultimately made it possible to remove this coefficient altogether.

[lancaIV]

Bow ey,an overunity "money generation" system : perpetuum ? 


Original theme related : https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-build-a-usd1000-fusion-reactor-in-your-basement


                                                                   compared


                                    https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/10/nextbigfuture-said-iter-would-cost-45-billion-more-and-doe-agrees.html




                                    partial the investment high difference : energetic output related !






Nice lecture related "fusion"-technology :


https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=&IN=winfield+salisbury&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search
             

[Ilya Tsimbaluk]

It's hard for me to say what you are talking about now. I work in my laboratory for my own money. Everyone is on enthusiasm

[Ilya Tsimbaluk]

The GPS sync problem

Ronald Hutch is a renowned specialist in the field of GPS (Global Navigation Systems) and satellite communication systems, the inventor of the "Hutch filter" widely known in electronics and information processing systems, President of ION (Institute of Space Navigation Systems), the organization that hosted the first GPS conference. with about 2,000 members.

GPS presents us with a different problem. It is well known that the GPS satellite system was developed in the USA. The Ministry of Defense ensures the highest accuracy of means of determining both position and time everywhere on the surface of the Earth and its surroundings. But GPS clocks (and even terrestrial clocks) present us with such a problem, which is not very well known, that the solutions to this problem admitted in it are undoubtedly wrong from the point of view of SRT.
The GPS clock shows, as expected, that the moving clock is running slower and that the clock is running slower at a lower gravitational potential.
The GPS clock is adjusted for the expected deceleration before launch into orbit, taking into account that the Earth's gravitational potential at nominal orbit altitude makes it run faster. This faster clock rate is a partial compensation for the effect of the nominal cyclic orbital speed of the satellites.
There are two interesting interactions between the effects of gravitational potential and the effects of speed in clock readings. First, at sea level, all clocks on Earth run at the same speed. This is due to the fact that the rotation of the Earth causes it to swell at the equator, since the gravitational potential is higher there. (A clock at the equator is farther from the center of the Earth.) The effect in clock readings from this large potential at the equator and the effect in clock readings from rotational speed exactly cancel each other out. So the clock at the equator is equal to the clock at the poles.
The second interaction of gravitational potential and speed in clock readings is due to the eccentricity of the GPS orbit. At perigee, the lower gravitational potential causes the GPS clock to run slower than nominal. Also at perigee, the satellites move faster than average and this also makes the GPS clock run slower - with exactly the same amount. So it seems that energy is what makes the clock go at a different pace. The increasing gravitational potential energy makes the clock run faster. The increasing kinetic energy (speed) causes the watch to run slower.
So what's the problem with the watch? The problem manifests itself, contrary to expectations, with clocks on Earth that do not seem to be affected by the sun's gravitational potential. Why is that? For clocks tied to Earth, the problem has been described as a noon-midnight problem. At noon, the clock is closer to the Sun by the diameter of the Earth than the clock at midnight. Thus, the clock is expected to run slower at noon than at midnight due to the solar gravitational potential, but this is not observed.
The first proposed solution to the noon-midnight problem was put forward by Banesh Hoffmann [2] in an article entitled "Midday-midnight redshift." The article states that the potential gravitational effect does not take place, since it is compensated by the relativistic Doppler effect. Thus, the author says that, like a clock at sea level, there is a mutual destruction of velocity and potential effects. In a nutshell, Hoffman states that since the point on Earth closest to the Sun and the point on Earth farthest from the movement around the Sun have different speeds, they will have clock-moving effects that are different from those seen in orbital movement around the Earth.
It is true that the clock that orbits the Sun in a year along the radius of the Earth's midnight must have the same course as the clock that orbits the Sun in a year along the radius of the Earth's midnight, that is, the potential gravitational difference must be compensated for by the speed difference. But Hoffmann's explanation cannot be accepted. This is contrary to the behavior of the GPS watch. The difference in solar gravitational potential for GPS synchronized at a point closest to the Sun and farthest from the Sun (the difference in distance is approximately four times the Earth's diameter) does not seem to have any effect on the GPS clock. Undoubtedly, these points in orbit fly around the Sun at different speeds. The planes of GPS satellite orbits do not rotate in the same way as the earth's orbit around the sun. However, they move around the Sun at the same speed. That the earth's axis of rotation does not change as the earth's orbit around the sun should be sufficient to deny Hoffmann's explanation. Rotation of the noon-midnight point of the Earth does not imply that the Earth's IRS undergoes annual rotation. A different explanation is needed for the missing effect.
An alternative attempt at explanation can be found in the literature. The article by Ashby and Bertotti [3], entitled "Relativistic Effects in Local IRF", requires that the acceleration of gravity produces a fictitious gravitational field that neutralizes the real field. The easiest way to read a version of the same argument is in a comprehensive book on GPS [4].
The problem of Ashby et al. Argumentation in the use of the equivalence principle. Here is a quote from page 686 of the source [4].
The equivalence principle implies that an observer in free fall in the gravitational field of the solar system cannot sense the presence of external gravitational fields. Although there is a gravitational force fieldobserver's instant free-fall position (force per unit mass) in the, this field produces an acceleration  fall of the observer. Due to this acceleration, an additional dummy the gravitational field is generated in the observer's CO. Two fields - one real and one induced compensate each other; the total field strength at the observer's position is zero. This implies that the gravitational potential in the area of ​​free fall of the observer cannot have any linear conditions in spatial coordinates. Only quadratic conditions can be maintained - these are tidal conditions. Tidal conditionsassociated with these residual effects - minor-in GPS.
It is the last two sentences of this quote that are the subject of discussion. As Michael Friedman [5] in The Foundations of Space-Time Theory, so Ciufolini and Wheeler [6] in Gravity and Inertia tell us that the principle of equivalence is not strictly observed in the local area, but in an infinitely small area. Let me refer to Friedman, p. 202, in some detail.
The standard formulation of the equivalence principle obscures the critical distinction between first-order and second-order laws, blurring the distinction between "infinitesimal" laws, valid at a single point, and local laws, obeying a neighborhood of a point. They lose the distinction between the structure of the space tangent to Tp and the configuration of the spaces tangent to Tq for q in a neighborhood of p. (This is one placewhere the casual attitude physics in relation to the "infinitely small" leads him to the realproblem!) What is undoubtedly the principle of equivalence says, then what special relativity and general relativity say, meaning the same "infinitesimal" structure, but not the one that is the local structure.
It is clear that in the extended domain (neighborhood), the potential gradient cannot be accurately eliminated by simply using the equivalence principle. On page 14, Suefolini and Wheeler talk about the weak principle of equivalence, "the principle can be reformulated by saying that in every local, non-rotating, freely falling frame of reference, the line accompanying the free fall of the test particle is a straight line." To straighten the lines in the region of this free fall of the test particle, it is required that the frame of reference rotates once in one orbit so that the neighboring point remains adjacent to the test particle and follows it in an equivalent straight path. This rotation is exactly what Hoffman suggests to explain the loss of the clock effect in the first article we referred to above. Thus, Ashby et al. Explain the absence of differential clock effects in GPS satellites from solar gravitational potential as a consequence of the equivalence principle. But they are wrong when they apply a result that is valid only over an infinitesimal area in a large area. So Ashby et al. Failed, like Hoffmann, in providing an explanation for the missing differential effect of solar gravitational potential in clocks near Earth. However, some other explanations are still needed for the missing effect. (See the mathematical appendix associated with the above statements.)
So what is the explanation for the absence of any effects of solar gravitational potential on clocks near Earth? Why don't we find the correct explanation in the literature? The answer to the first of these two questions was not difficult. Similar to the VLBI analysis, the answer can be found by using the solar inertial reference frame to analyze the data. When we do this using the speeds and positions in the solar IFR and the gravitational potentials of both the Earth and the Sun, the solution to the first question will become obvious. In the solar IFR, the solar gravitational potential causes "along the speed" of the clock displacement (relative to the clocks synchronized in the Earth IFR) rotate so that they remain "along the speed", since the velocity vector changes direction due to the solar gravitational force. In other words, the gradient of the gravitational potential (gravitational force) causes the Earth's velocity vector to change direction. The same gradient of the gravitational potential forces the clock near the Earth to work in such a rhythm that the clock changes its course so as to maintain it in the direction "along the speed". This way, a clear absence of the effect in the terrestrial IFR is ensured simply, since they are absorbed as part of the Lorentz transformation from solar IFR to terrestrial IFR. In other words, it is the action of the solar potential that keeps the clock synchronized in the direction-of-speed, so that the speed of light is measured the same as in the Earth's IFR.
The answer to the second question is a little more speculative. If the solar gravitational potential is part of the mechanism that leaves the speed of light apparently isotropic in the terrestrial IFR, the Lorentz transformation can decompose into two components. One part should reflect the position and speed of one inertial reference frame relative to the other, that is, the Selleri transformation [7], and the second part should be the clock rate distribution, which makes the speed of light isotropic in the new inertial reference frame. And this is a mechanism for replacing magic with Lorentz transformations. He implies that Special Theory of Relativity (SRT) should be replaced by the Etheric Theory of Lorentz (ETL). But such a replacement would be a scandal.