The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[erickdt]

G?day all,

Here is another example of how fossilised the thinking is at times here in the forum. I keep getting mail from experimenters telling me how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.

Can you conceive of anything more idiotic?

Simulation software uses the standard mathematics and physics of the day. As such the calculations are based on the laws of conservation of energy and Newton?s laws of thermodynamics. These are GIVEN PARAMETERS! Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?

It is like trying to show yellow on a black and white monitor. The signal might well be in colour but the monitor, because of its inbuilt limitations, can never show it.

We need to break out of this way of thinking.

Hans von Lieven

Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?

Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...

[exxcomm0n]

@ erickdt & @ Hans

Kudos erickdt and I hope to see your device soon!

But the discussion about using/not using software simulation is kinda moot.

Software might be able to represent 95% of the process accurately, but cannot decipher the last 5% and therefore will say the process fails.
Just remember that software is written by humans.

Remember when the world was in a tizzy because software engineers left out 2 digits to work better/be more efficient inside the constraints they had at the time, and those constraints being laughable by the time the situation came to a crisis?
There were lots of theories about what would happen when Y2K hit, but now we can look back and smile at our insecurities, but think about the millions (billions) of dollars spent in the belief of experts.

It was a prime example of fear and popularity being a prime motivator and decision criteria.
That's just the most icky way to think for a scientist/experimenter/inventor.

Everyone uses different tools, analysis, and targets for their experiments.
To say that a tool shouldn't be used, or should ALWAYS be used is just another way to say "You're right" or "You're wrong".

At the end of the day (project) there should be standing testimonial as to whether those tools worked for the inventor/scientist, what the ending result is, and why it's desirable.

Let's not get tied up in everyones pet process, or else we're doing the work for  (place external negative forces here).

I agree that scientific analysis is necessary for those not close to the inventor, but have you ever thought that the inventor/scientist might look at the documentation of a successful  project like writing a childrens book for a 6 yo when they are used to thinking of, and imparting information in a much more evoluted manner? Or maybe they are autistic and don't even have a frame of reference to convey the knowledge to a "normal".

All an experimenter can do is make their idea physical to see if the idea matches the actual.

Someone might make something in their barn without the benefit of software that outputs kilojoules of energy without using a previously known power source, but only be able to talk about it with their 10yo niece.
If I can look at it closely, measure it's output, and see that it's not using any energy known to me for it's actions I have to grant it as success even though the inventor and I cannot have a conversation about it.

THERE IS NO _1_ WAY TO THINK.
Just because it's popular, or the way it's always been done does not make it right.
Anyone that tells you there is only 1 way is trying some type of indoctrination upon you.


I've seen MANY claims that someone has a built working device that they have made, but no one has seen yet.

In this case I like to use a little life coping device I learned a while ago.
I listen to everything someone says and view it as a theory. I then use my observation to see if their actions mirror what they've said. If it predominately does over a significant span of time, I learn to honor their word without as much scrutiny.

I look @ what you DO. Not what you SAY. I believe this is a principle that is as important, and as crucial as "the golden rule" and should be taught with the fervor and belief that any other is.
Honor isn't given, or else the word would be gift and not honor. Honor is earned.

Teach me to honor your words by showing me that you mean them.

Don't tell me about your device. Show me your device. Show others your device.

Then, even if you cannot describe to me how you made it, I can look at it, look at it's output, look at how it realizes that output, and discuss it with others doing the same things as me to see if we can come up with a agreed upon way to talk about it and relay the discovery to others in terms they will understand. Perhaps then my peers and I can replicate it, and then others can too.


I (and I assume other people) come here to discuss ideas and theories that most either don't have the intellect to be interested in, or the desire to want to be.

We're different (mostly), except we same to be falling into the same social patterns everyone ELSE uses that I (for one) disparage.

Do I exhibit that behavior too?  Yep.

It's been part of my environment for so long I've become inundated with it "by rote".

But I TRY not to. That's all I can do.

Will you try too?

Other than that, have a good day inventing/theorizing/dreaming all, and show me what you've been thinking about!

[hansvonlieven]

Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?

Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...

G'day Erick,

You have totally misunderstood what I said. There is nothing wrong with testing a design in a simulation programme prior to building.

What I have said is: .....how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.

and: .......Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?

Of course this is an idiotic pursuit. I still stand by my statement.

Hans von Lieven

[erickdt]

Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?

Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...

G'day Erick,

You have totally misunderstood what I said. There is nothing wrong with testing a design in a simulation programme prior to building.

What I have said is: .....how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.

and: .......Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?

Of course this is an idiotic pursuit. I still stand by my statement.

Hans von Lieven

My bad if I misunderstood. Anyway, I'm not sure that CoE needs to be violated in order to harness the free energy of gravity. The fact that it is achievable in this program (WM2D) would suggest that CoE is not violated. The trick is that you need to figure out a way for the weights to be naturally unbalanced without a mechanism that has to do work and therefore lose energy due to CoE.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Erick,

Perhaps you don't need to violate CoE.

Bessler said that his system did nor break any laws of nature and he was aware of Newton, though CoE came much later with Helmholtz so Bessler couldn't have known about that.

Hans