Is this the beginning of the end?

[sm0ky2]

Those that know the truth and the lies propagated by academia
find it pointless to argue with the thermodynamically indoctrinated.


If you "don't believe in OU", go buy a tuning fork (the fancy ones that can hold a note and comes with a hammer), pick up an acoustic chamber tuned to your fork.


Measure the energy in and out.
And when you are finished, you have all the tool's necessary to apply your new knowledge to every area of physics.


That is overunity of the 1st kind: direct interaction and reaction


Magnetism and Gravity each fall into their own category, though they can be used in combination
Buoyancy is a manifestation of gravity, so a gravity/ buoyancy system is just using both sides of the 'field'


These (and electromagnetic devices) are overunity of the 2nd kind: having an intermediary or exchange mechanism.


As you ponder these conditions, consider why it is that we expend massive amounts of energy in our homes,
To LOWER the thermal energy state?


Energy is relative


The Earth saw no change in internal energy
You only moved some heat from inside your house to outside your house.
The change in energy came in the form of heat produced by the electronics that moved the heat
adding to the heat of the atmosphere.
And the heat released producing that electricity at the power plant.
So the earth only sees the fuel being converted to heat.


Excluding our electronics, Within the volume


quite frankly there are much better ways of doing that, even some that produce energy from the temperature differential.


But they will sell you on this 'carnot efficiency' b.s. so you keep buying A/C systems and paying your power bill (and subsequent taxes). [this is i believe the motivation behind thermodynamic thumpers pushing curriculum in the accredited college courses)


What a thermodynamicist is reluctant to explain to you is that the carnot cycle also works in reverse.
we can gain energy equivalent to (up to 50%) of the heat energy we are moving.


What they also don't tell you is that the entire theory of thermodynamics hinges on a choice in perspective.


What systems are you observing?
From which perspective?


Take the A/C:
We observe this device from the terms of energy input
and heat differential from the resultant process.


It "costs us" some quantity of energy to move heat from one side to the other.
We assume this system to begin at thermodynamic equilibrium,
Our energy spent is equal to the difference in initial and final temperature of a volume
of atmosphere surrounding our home, equivalent to the volume inside our house.
Plus the losses in our mechanical system.


Thats 150% of the energy required to move the heat.


Which, done by another process (and observational perspective) would provide 30% of that value as output energy, (relatively) costing us nothing to allow the heat to move itself.


[if you do not understand how such a thing is possible, please at your next convenience, take temperature measurements of the ambient, within and outside of a 'shadow' or at a depth slightly below ground]


———————————————


Thermodynamic inequalities:


Certain quotients are not compatible to thermodynamic analysis:


Such as gravity/buoyancy, and magnetism (atomic/molecular/"permanent")


We are accustomed to the mechanics of a Hot Air Baloon
In this system, the energy required to achieve a buoyant state using atmosphere as a medium
and Heat as the mechanism: is greater than the gravitational potential gained from the process.


Replace this process with a low energy exchange mechanism, and buoyant gravitational potential is free,
Or provided in conjunction with the devices output.
This is the basis of buoyancy-gravity devices, some consume more than the output
Some consume less, and only one is exactly at equilibrium with it's own buoyant exchange mechanism.
(under Earth conditions)


Why is there an lack of equivalent translation?
Take air for example: add heat to air it expands by a specific volume per unit heat
Other atoms or molecules perform differently. There is no standard.
Some are above or below the energy line from our perspective.
Meaning using heat to create buoyant states can be either over or under unity from our perspective observation. Helium and Hydrogen are two of the molecules that have a negative exchange mechanism.
"OU molecules" still have doubts? Go study the natural Hydrogen Cycle.


Magnetism is often viewed as a "conservative field".
This is only a matter of mathematical convenience.
We study symmetrical fields, in either locked or free motion.


Looking at symmetrical fields where both magnets are free to move,
Or cases where one magnet is free and the other is locked: conform (mostly) to thermodynamic representations of magnetism.


Observe an asymmetrical magnetic field or field interactions where the motion is constrained:
and we see a completely different picture than the one presented by thermodynamic theory.


————————————————————-


Magnetism is often equated to gravity:


These two forces are not equivalent.
They do not behave the same


And as such, energy differentials can be obtained between the two interacting forces.
These differentials are present both mathematically, and in real world experimentation.
quite in contrast to thermodynamic theory.


Thermodynamics is the only physical "law" which contradicts itself, cannot be empirically proven, yet is still considered a physical "law". Personally, i cannot agree with this assessment, experience has indicated the opposite.


———————————————————————


Entropy:


Ed Leedskalnin's Perpetual Motion Holder
where does entropy take place in a closed magnetic loop?


There is more, but let this little bit soak in.....

[sm0ky2]

And Cloxxi
I would love to engage your superiors in sophisticated physics debates concerning this matter.
Please feel free to have them contact me.

[sm0ky2]

English is not my native language, apologies for being less clear with my : NO.

NO I don't think it's overunity, as you need to generate and combust the hydrogen at the pressures valid in their respectively environment. You've added a layer of complexity to the classic buoyancy mind puzzles, but these added layers themselves don't introduce overunity. You're merely ignoring parts of their energy expense. In my very limited understanding of physics.

Hydrogen electrolysis to my knowledge doesn't give free buoyancy energy. You need to insert the energy for all that buoyancy first to local pressure.

Name your cheap electrolysis method at high pressure and prove it to exist. It would be cheaper than conventional, thus the green warriors will make you their king, just to get the stuff into a fuel cell or war head.

Lets use 2 fuel cells, 1 in reverse performing electrolysis


A modern cell pair can generate hydrogen, then convert it back to electricity at 60% efficiency.
Meaning 40% of our energy was lost to the process.


now: at 1/2 cycle we have 2 gasses, O2 and H2 (in theoretically stoichiometric quantities)


The buoyancy of Hydrogen is far greater than necessary to lift its mass in oxygen to any desired height, with a negative energy factor : yes it costs us energy to hold the hydrogen to the ground.


Allow both gasses to rise to height (x).
Then direct them into the second fuel cell:


Now we have heavy mass H2O at height (x) times gravity
In excess to our 60% initial electrical energy.


News flash: height (x) is an indeterminate variable, we can choose this value to be anythinng we want, free of charge.




Insert the height at which energy in - energy out = 0.


Then fail to constrain the buoyant force for a single millimeter beyond that height


You are  past the point of Unity
What then do you call this energy state?

[BorisKrabow]

Why such complex and expensive checks for free energy.
everything is simple: we take a substance with a strongly oscillating core and touch a piezoelectric / ferroelectric. Further, the oscillation of the nucleus turns into electrical discharges. Since the rotation of the core cannot be stopped, you have in your hands a cell with electricity for 100 trillion years.      Under test....

            https://overunity.com/19339/is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end/msg575424/#msg575424   picture here

      refer to                     Dr   John Hutchison    ,    Also     US20140252920A1

[Cloxxki]

Lets use 2 fuel cells, 1 in reverse performing electrolysis


A modern cell pair can generate hydrogen, then convert it back to electricity at 60% efficiency.
Meaning 40% of our energy was lost to the process.


now: at 1/2 cycle we have 2 gasses, O2 and H2 (in theoretically stoichiometric quantities)


The buoyancy of Hydrogen is far greater than necessary to lift its mass in oxygen to any desired height, with a negative energy factor : yes it costs us energy to hold the hydrogen to the ground.


Allow both gasses to rise to height (x).
Then direct them into the second fuel cell:


Now we have heavy mass H2O at height (x) times gravity
In excess to our 60% initial electrical energy.


News flash: height (x) is an indeterminate variable, we can choose this value to be anythinng we want, free of charge.




Insert the height at which energy in - energy out = 0.


Then fail to constrain the buoyant force for a single millimeter beyond that height


You are  past the point of Unity
What then do you call this energy state?

I'm not qualified to do the calculations, but keep in mind that the atmosphere only provides 1 bar to work with.
As you build a higher lift, there are diminishing returns, every minute step of the way.
You play with immense energy but for the OU part you only address their relative mass for buoyancy.

Such a build, even by your calcs, would seek to squeeze out tiny bit of theoretical OU, from a structure that wouldn't be much easier to build than the next tallest building in the world. Using a deep decommissioned mine might be a way around it, but still brings in huge running costs. Playing with H and O underground in, imagine that...

Even IF you somehow find a process that's OU, you won't be able to sell energy at an attractive rate. All this time oldering some wind turbines and solar panels on Alibaba would have been the more profitable thing to do.

I like the creativity of combining chemistry and physics, though...