New guy on Free energy

[Eminent]

hey guys wuts up..

Im new to this forum and the concept of free energy..

I am fairly new on electronics and theorists and energy laws as well..

but I do have designs in my head that came to me in a state-awakened dream..  No clue how it came upon me, but it just did..

So, here is some questions I have..

How would a free energy be decided to be free energy?  I skimmed around the forum and saw some magnetic things to make something move.. is this free energy?

I also recently saw the post about steorns project, and couple of other inventors.. 

Another question I have is how would someone draw up energy by simple continuous rotation? 
   -For example, the magnet makes the sphere go in circles faster and faster, by putting a coil, would the coil be able to extract energy from the movement likewise as what is happening in a wind-energy technology?..

I have many more questions, but I think itd make my post more confusing, so please someone answer these in a simple basic language a joe-shmoe guy can understand?

Thanks
-Eminent

[BEP]

The term "Free energy" should be self-explanatory. Wherever we acquire it the total energy cost is less than what we put into it.

On doing it with rotating or some other kind of field?

The basic idea is that we live in a sea of energy? let?s call them particles for now. These are not usable because they are at the same potential as us. Kind of like there is a fast moving river and you are in it bobbing along. You don?t feel the current because you are moving the same speed as the water. If you grab a hold of something to stop then you feel it.

The idea is to change the potential of one point in this sea so you can measure the difference between that point and one still moving. If you can, you connect a light bulb and it glows. If it takes more power to make it happen than you get out then it is a waste of time.

[Eminent]

Thanks for the definition of free energy..

Now about the light bulb power..  Ive seen the tpu(although I have no clue how that worked) and steorn where pure magnets and constant movement of objects were said to be able to make energy and displays enough power to light a bulb..  did they use some coil in the sides of the circle sphere to draw up the energy of deflection?

One may say, that identifying precise location of magnets to move the sphere in a constant motion IS more energy than energy input which is 0.. but I dont think that that maybe enough to power a light bulb?

Sorry If i may sound like if im rambling.. just trying to figure out, how things actually work..

[steve_whiss]

Hi Eminent,

Welcome to OU.com!

not all things are known and it is a struggle to sort all the ideas out.

Physics (which this really is) has grown up over the last 2500 years or so with a big bag of toys and observations, fitting them together and arguing over how good the fit is.

There are some left-overs, which we are dealing with here.

First, up "energy".

The word is derived from "life" or "animus" - it means the property of being dynamic somehow present in things.

A rock just sitting there has no energy (in this view) - throw it, and it has energy of motion.

Forms of energy known today include:

matter (a complex condensate of massive energy)
motion (linear speed, spin, heat)
fields (electric, magnetic, gravity, weak, strong)
pressure

- think that is it.

These can all manifest together and separately, seemingly at random.

But there is one dominant idea: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This arises for two reasons:

1. this rule seems to work for practical systems. If the energy sorces are totalised for a system, losses figured in, then the net total of energy never changes - yes, the form the energy is in might change - but once added up the total remains fixed.

2. early mathematicians looking at physics discovered if they made their equations reflect "total energy is fixed" - they got equations more likely to work.

Emmy Noether in 1915 went one further and developed a generic proof which has been hailed as one of the key results of the 20th Century - the reason behind why 1) and 2)  cropped up so often (Einstien went so far as to call her a genius, regarding her work as above his own).

An upshot of this is that ideas of "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are now so dissed by formal physics that - the formal guys usually never hang around to hear, they run or cover the ears singing "Lalalallalalalaa" loudly.

Noether "law of Conservation of Energy" is as close to "faith" as exists in physics - conversely, people have lost position, respect and much $$$ for playing with failed energy systems (the whole "cold fusion" rumpus in the late 1980s destroyed careers).

Thus the phrase "free energy" is to MOST physicists no more sensible then "round square" or "helpless Dictator" (sometimes I feel the OU movement would do well to drop the phrase Free Energy just on baggage grounds).

so where does that leave us?

Either looking for unexplainable oddities which seemingly do not fit any explanation (like the TPU) OR trying to figure out some realm or well of energy we can make use of.

Finding a new well is the big hope - zero point energy has long been known now (it does exist; this is not a SciFi invention). Energy there is massive. But, where is "there"?

There is hope of a sort. Physics has deep problems right now, as it knows there is a loose end. Their systems have gaps, they do not tie together. So they suspect some profound problem exists in their work. The biggest simple issue is that - if energy is a true constant - why is there no single equation (Grand Unified Theory / Theory of Everything) which uses energy to show how everything is put together?

The biggest problem is that gravity is not at all understood; yes, it can be accounted and predicted - but what it is is unknown.



I have been wondering if overunity.com needs a suggested reading list; for someone in your position the path seems long indeed with no single pointer - just hundreds, most disagreeing.

be warned. In 1848 Maxwell complained that the number of new publications being written was so high - he could no longer keep up with the reading. And there are far, far more scientists about now. Backreading runs into tens of thousands of books.

Good luck!

Steve

[ring_theory]

An upshot of this is that ideas of "perpetual motion" and "free energy" are now so dissed by formal physics that - the formal guys usually never hang around to hear, they run or cover the ears singing "Lalalallalalalaa" loudly.

Great post Steve! Priceless!