Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

[seshamxy]

Just a simple thing. You guys are forgetting the basic idea. Law of conservation of energy. Total energy in of an isolated system can never be more than total energy out in an isolated system. In case of over unity devices, as a friend referred one can obtain 1500 watt output from mere 90 watt input. this is a very good ratio of input to output in the field of over unity. here just electrical energy is getting amplified, not the total energy (as said in the Law of Energy Conservation) also, the abiders of O.U. is always sticking to the science they were taught in their educational institutions. Energy at input is > Energy at Output. i totally agree to the statement of Total Energy at Input > Total energy at Output, which is also what the Law of Energy Conservation states. So Physics supports this kind of machine, this is never Perpetual motion actually.

To understand how the Output becomes higher than input, first we need to know what is going on in this mechanism. The generating part, plucks out an electron from the Coil which is actually causing an ionization in the near surroundings, this ionization is nullified by the electrons in the surrounding atmosphere's atoms. Also every O.U. machine follows one common principle, they have momentum imbalance between input and output. Input motors have large momentum than output generators.

So why have not we seen any O.U. machines in public?

The answer is simple, if we use any such O.U. machine for our transportation, then how will government earn through Electricity grid and Petroleum Vehicles? Every nation is suppressing every such inventor regarding Over Unity devices.

[NdaClouDzzz]

So why have not we seen any O.U. machines in public?

The answer is dependent on your definition of OU.
At least one of the problems is that the terminology that we use in the free-energy-quest community is so ambiguous that those wishing to suppress such tech have no problem tearing apart those who claim such devices are possible and do exist.
For example: Would you consider a simple sailboat as an OU or free-energy device?  Take a small one person sailboat. It's in the water and all anyone has to do to sail around for free all day is to put a small amount of energy/power into hoisting the sail into the wind and giving small input adjustments to steer the craft. Here we have an example of more out than in. Anyone not believing so need only test it themselves by using GPS to track their sailing route and speed for that day of sailing and then on another day attempt to follow the same route and speed, only this time instead of being IN the boat, the sailor instead swims behind the boat pushing it for the same length of time at the same speed and same route. It's obvious that the sailor will have expended far more energy on the latter test than the former. Thus, this is a perfect every-day example of a free-energy or OU device being used in public. Yet, despite the free-energy or OU implications in what I have just described, there are those who can find many arguments to make contradicting my example as being free-energy or OU. For example, they can argue that the energy that was required to build the boat, put it in the water and hoist the sail etc., renders any energy that you collect with the sail as not being free because you PAID for that energy in the cost of the boat and in your continued energy input to raise the sail, etc. Thus, the energy you get out is not really free.
And the OU argument goes that the energy that YOU put in is separate from the wind energy/power that pushes the boat and therefore it is not OU.
I do not use these examples of counter argument because I agree with them, as I do NOT! They are merely examples of how our terminology helps to keep the public blind to the many examples of what we would refer to as OU examples in our everyday lives

Also every O.U. machine follows one common principle, they have momentum imbalance between input and output.

A little presumptuous
Cheers.

[Vinyasi]

Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....
I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.  My intent is convince you why that's OK!

Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.  What's more, they can certainly accommodate what we and all like-minded folks are trying to accomplish- the harnessing of free energy.  The problem with the laws of physics is not in the theory, but the application and the understanding.  Conventional scientists in short, have simply read too much into them; made too made assumptions.  Conversely, OU enthusiasts tend to abandon them altogether.  What is needed is a happy medium.

More energy can never be extracted from a system than was input.  True statement.  But conventional thinking (and language) has twisted this into "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in."  See the difference?  The flawed definition of "system" in the second statement assumes only one source of input energy- MAN.  It is this assumption that makes it so easy for conventional thinkers to categorically oppose the notion of free energy.  To them I pose this example:

There exists a rock, and a man (the system defined).  The man pushes the rock.  The rock moves.  It's movement follows precisely the laws of conservation of energy, and the total energy equation can be defined by a few basic measurements, and predicted exactly.  But... The rock is at the edge of a cliff.  When the rock strikes the ground it will exert far more energy than the man ever input- the energy equation doesn't balance, apparently violating known laws of physics!  OU folks go "whoa! looky! Must be FREE ENERGY!"  Well no, the system just needs to be expanded to include the potential energy stored by the rock.  Again, we can measure this.  But what if the rock is Uranium, and at the bottom of the cliff is another chunk?  Now when the rock hits the ground, the chunks mash together to form a critical mass that quickly fissions out of control!  Now that's a whole nother bunch of variables to add to the equation.  And 200 years ago, that would have been nothing short of magic, or God's wrath. 

Scientists tend to forget that sometimes there are variables in the system that they can't measure.  And there exists no box that can seal a system from all of these outside influences.

Now, OU buffs have to concede a bit too.

Overunity, or free energy, is all basically perpetual motion- whether it be the motion of magnets, electrons, wheels or whiffle balls.  Perpetual means never-ending - Infinite time.  And science says that's impossible, because it requires infinite energy to perpetuate it!  Which means, by its own defnition, that any machine or energy source which has a finite lifespan IS POSSIBLE.  And by simple logic, if some huge amount of work can be extracted over a huge amount of time, an even huger amount could be extracted over a shorter period.  A fission reactor illustrates the former; an atom bomb, the latter.  This is non-perpetual motion, almost-free energy, near-unity, possible.

So then, I offer this piece of advice to readers- abandon the notion of free energy from the ether which will outlive the human race.  First of all, science says it's impossible.  Second, WHAT'S THE POINT if near-unity is just as good? 
A 99.99% efficient device that last 500 years would be just fine for us mortals, and fits just fine with conventional physical laws.  The trick is not necessarily in finding new sources of potential energy, new rocks on cliffs.  The key is to figure out easier ways of pushing them off...

This is not intended as dissuasion, just a minor paradigm shift...

I partly disagree.
Electrical reactance of the extreme variety (namely, whenever current is inverted from voltage via non-digital techniques, such as the exclusive use of analog components (caps, coils, spark gaps, etc), alters time to such a degree that time is no longer a stable (non-variant) frame of reference. Hence, due to Noether's Theorem, conservation of energy no longer applies. And since when is reactance not enumerated with complex numbers involving the square root of a negative number? And where in physicality can this imaginary manmade construct be found?

What I study leads to interesting observations, that: this extreme variety of electrical reactance is: explosive, and local transmission lines can get in the way of this type of device (harnessing its inversion of current from itself while it can easily be powered by a mere micro volt similar to ambient levels in our environment at ground level). This "getting in the way" phenomenon occurred at least a few times: when C. Earl Ammann was arrested when he entered Washington, D.C., to deliver his EV to the Patent Office. This car had no batteries powering itself. I think I also read somewhere than some people claimed that the Moray device could do likewise if positioned near power lines.

Yet, I find this theft to be a nuisance since it can be avoided by taking precautions (shielding, etc).

Here's a simulated example.

I've been warned that my recent contribution to WikiBooks will be deleted since it is offensive to someone's sensibilities:

"This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

Backed up here.

[bruce-t-bon]

Thanks for the challenge! and for the greater number of creator that disagree, well his guy might be right if you continue on the same path as you have. In order to propagate over-unity you need to  change the way we think. Don't be mad. Thanks for sharing. 

[Vinyasi]

Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....
I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.  My intent is convince you why that's OK!

Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.  What's more, they can certainly accommodate what we and all like-minded folks are trying to accomplish- the harnessing of free energy.  The problem with the laws of physics is not in the theory, but the application and the understanding.  Conventional scientists in short, have simply read too much into them; made too made assumptions.  Conversely, OU enthusiasts tend to abandon them altogether.  What is needed is a happy medium.

More energy can never be extracted from a system than was input.  True statement.  But conventional thinking (and language) has twisted this into "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in."  See the difference?  The flawed definition of "system" in the second statement assumes only one source of input energy- MAN.  It is this assumption that makes it so easy for conventional thinkers to categorically oppose the notion of free energy.  To them I pose this example:

There exists a rock, and a man (the system defined).  The man pushes the rock.  The rock moves.  It's movement follows precisely the laws of conservation of energy, and the total energy equation can be defined by a few basic measurements, and predicted exactly.  But... The rock is at the edge of a cliff.  When the rock strikes the ground it will exert far more energy than the man ever input- the energy equation doesn't balance, apparently violating known laws of physics!  OU folks go "whoa! looky! Must be FREE ENERGY!"  Well no, the system just needs to be expanded to include the potential energy stored by the rock.  Again, we can measure this.  But what if the rock is Uranium, and at the bottom of the cliff is another chunk?  Now when the rock hits the ground, the chunks mash together to form a critical mass that quickly fissions out of control!  Now that's a whole nother bunch of variables to add to the equation.  And 200 years ago, that would have been nothing short of magic, or God's wrath. 

Scientists tend to forget that sometimes there are variables in the system that they can't measure.  And there exists no box that can seal a system from all of these outside influences.


Now, OU buffs have to concede a bit too.

Overunity, or free energy, is all basically perpetual motion- whether it be the motion of magnets, electrons, wheels or whiffle balls.  Perpetual means never-ending - Infinite time.  And science says that's impossible, because it requires infinite energy to perpetuate it!  Which means, by its own defnition, that any machine or energy source which has a finite lifespan IS POSSIBLE.  And by simple logic, if some huge amount of work can be extracted over a huge amount of time, an even huger amount could be extracted over a shorter period.  A fission reactor illustrates the former; an atom bomb, the latter.  This is non-perpetual motion, almost-free energy, near-unity, possible.

So then, I offer this piece of advice to readers- abandon the notion of free energy from the ether which will outlive the human race.  First of all, science says it's impossible.  Second, WHAT'S THE POINT if near-unity is just as good? 
A 99.99% efficient device that last 500 years would be just fine for us mortals, and fits just fine with conventional physical laws.  The trick is not necessarily in finding new sources of potential energy, new rocks on cliffs.  The key is to figure out easier ways of pushing them off...




This is not intended as dissuasion, just a minor paradigm shift...

Overunity is possible whenever the input of real power is severely restricted to allow the over-reactance of the valence electron volts of the materials of construction...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324978006_Low_Frequency_Oscillations_in_Indian_Grid

Hence, ...
Real Power Input cannot equal Reactive Power Output unless we induce a self-fulfilling condition in which we subscribe to the Conservation of Energy by suppressing the over-reactance of Foster's Reactance Theorem by feeding a circuit all of its energy requirements plus an additional extra input to cover its thermodynamic losses. This theorem, by Foster, allows for negative impedance resulting in the possibility - not probability - of a circuit becoming its own generator whenever starved for input.

There are other rules to follow, such as (but not limited to): disallowing a throughput for input voltage to discourage the formation of current and to force current to exit the same terminal through which it entered. This causes a reversal of current which, under passive sign convention, is the definition of a generator. The distinct difference, here, is that there is no significant prime mover authorizing this generative state within this type of circuit. So-called prime movers (in this specialized case) become (instead) catalysts incapable of being labeled as prime movers or voltage sources (etc) since their presence is merely intended to stimulate an over-reactance without supplying sufficient real power to convert into an equal amplitude of reactive power.

For a practical test of these ideas, please see my unabashed self-promotion of...

https://100wattlightbulbchallenge.quora.com/