OverUnity Question

[Spewing]

I feel out of place posting here dew to this being the first post here other than the Prize Money Post. i would just like to have a few things Cleared up, and i feel this is the proper place for this post.

I will start by asking,

1.Have you Seen a device that puts out more POWER than it Consumes?

2.How many Confirmed that this device works? Can you povide Solid  Proof of this device and a way of replicating it?

3.Do you know OF anyone that has a Device that is Generating More power than it is consuming?

Please answer each Question as given, Thank you.

[linda933]

Power?  I think you mean energy, don't you?  It's easy to demonstrate a device that puts out more power than it consumes.  Just trickle-charge a battery for a long time using a low-power charger and then discharge the same battery quickly into a high-power load.  See?  More power out than in!

This works because power does not include a factor of time.  I think what you are asking has to do with energy, rather than power.  Energy is power multiplied by time.  In order to be overunity, a device must supply more energy output than it consumes energy input.  Now that's a much tougher trick!  One Watt of power available for an hour is the same amount of energy as 3600 Watts of power available for one second.  One watt-hour equals 3600 joules (watt-seconds).

I guess that's why people call it "free energy" rather than "free power".  I know that it sounds like I'm being overly technical and making a silly comment here, but you'd be amazed at the number of inventors who fail to understand this and think they have discovered "free energy" simply because they were able to produce more power (for a brief time) out of their machine than they put in (for a longer time).  Instantaneous peak pulsed power output is often compared to continuous power input by inventors with simple energy-storage-based machines containing flywheels, capacitors, etc.

To answer your questions precisely, using the term "power" as given, my answers would be:

Yes, many, yes, yes

If the term "energy" were substituted into your questions, then my answers become:

No, none, no, no

Linda

(Was this a trick question?  Did I get the trick answer right?)

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Linda and all,

As usual you have hit the nail right on the head darling. This is the very thing that has fooled so many with the Milkovic device. Everybody looks at how little power goes in and how much goes out totally ignoring that the peak power output is only for a very short time.

That is why no-one, including Milkovic, has been able to create a self runner in spite of the fact that one side shows ten times the power than the other. Multiply both sides by time as appropriate for each side and all you get is equilibrium minus friction and drag.

Pity many researchers do not bother to learn elementary physics because they erroneously believe that ALL of physics is wrong and has to be re-written.

No doubt contemporary physics is full of holes and unknowns and further discoveries will be made, some of them revolutionary. I seriously doubt though that this will be in the area of elementary mechanics or basic stable data.

Hans von Lieven

[linda933]

deleted,

Oh...you are too fast for me...I guess you figured out how stupid your post was all by yourself!  I was going to ask you to tell us the difference between electrical power and electrical energy then...but I see you have rescinded your foolish arguments.  Very good!

Linda 

[gaby de wilde]

If your goal in life is to show how stupid people are you should go to the skeptic forum.

Here in the news area you look stupid!!