"Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.

[profitis]

"We get to decide
which way it will go <-- not subject to anyone's else's
policy."

So True

[jhewitt03041976@gmail.com]

Ok, I've run into several situations were all too many people from various areas of energy research get put off and/or confused by the term "Overunity", in business, scientific, engineering AND even our own back yards of "Overunity-philes" 
I spoke in front of a group of pre-college students some 19 years back about this very thing "What Overunity REALLY is !!!", I started with a short presentation before the Q&A...

Overunity: A Frankenstien Experiment?

"Overunity", a word that by popular definition both inspires and reviles at the same time, those who want to create devices that produce greater amounts of energy than they use to produce that output, on the other side, there are those who believe that because of established "Laws of Thermodynamics", such devices and technology are fantastic machinations of sci-fi fans and ignorant Tesla zealots.

"Overunity" is such a misunderstood word, often misunderstood by both the believers AND disbelievers alike, as are the commonly used first lines of the three "Laws of Thermodynamics", these phrases are so quickly and blindly thrown around like weapons and/or shields against those who are looking to research and/or produce prototypes of overunity technology, most of the time used to dissuade the interested as well as an excuse to not even look into the ideas presented or refute presented ideas, data and even prototypes, a very unfortunate practice in the scientific community.

"Overunity" by popular misunderstood definition is "procedures and/or technology to produce energy greater than the amount of work and energy put into the process of the production. the "established" fact is, it IS impossible to create or destroy energy, energy can only be changed from one type to another, however, the true intention of the objective of overunity procedures and technology is to convert efficiently one or more sources of potential, stored or direct energy for use as a singular source of energy, "efficiency" is what "Overunity" is about, a word/phrase that should be changed to an acronym such as "S.E.E.C.S." or "Super Efficient Energy Conversion Systems" or something more creative, point being is that it's a very misleading word/phrase and is the first step in problematic stereotypes that hinder the progress of overunity procedures and technologies.

"Overunity" as it is intended actually exists this day, solar power...the amount of work the panels use to convert to usable energy is almost nothing, yet it is a common and popular technology, as it gains popularity, research is inspired to increase efficiency, reduce size and lower costs. hydro and wind power, sources of energy used for THOUSANDS of years in the production of food and more modern sources of electrical energy, but requires very little energy in the conversion process, even nuclear power, it requires a fuel source (which is just a source of potential energy) and an outside source of energy to start the system, but very efficiently converts that to heat, which is used to heat water to steam, that passes through a turbine, connected to giant magnet and coil generators, which provide energy for many states, the fact is, "overunity" as intended is very real and those quirky ideas that some inspired souls create are your possible self charging cellphone battery in the next iPhone 12, or your new 2019 Ford E-Focus electric, self sustaining, your house generator, ect. it's all closer than people want to admit, such as electro-magnetic, RF recovery systems, passive kinetic conversion and many other theorized and even technologies that have proven the possibility of larger and more efficient future versions that can not only attain equal recovery but greater  recovery than used to produce the results.

"free energy" is free sourced, but still costs money for the equipment, time and maintenance to convert that free source into energy, "Overunity" put as SIMPLY as it can be is about maximizing conversion efficiency "S.E.E.C.S."

doesn't matter the name or acronym used, any name more accurate to the intended effect and less suggestive is better than "Over" & "Unity"..."More than Equal", "Creating More from Less". those of us who understand the movement, that term is fine....but it's not about those of us who understand, it's about our ability to sell the ideas and designs and products to those who DON'T understand that is important for us to find support for research and development from a world that thinks we are Star Wars/Star Trek techno-fantasy geeks trying to hunt down and kill "The White Whale", since we can't go into the world trying to get help for our causes, by starting EVERY presentation with "Let me start by saying what the REAL, INTENDED meaning of overunity is.....", the word needs to be changed PERIOD when used in the outside world, a word and/or anagram that explains it clearly, quickly and simply...

if someone can come up with a more clear, concise and simpler definition than "Super Efficient Energy Conversion" (S.E.E.C.), please, God do it.

As much as we want to think of ourselves as being above appearances in modern society, the world is NOT, it is how something is first presented that can make or break a sale, and even though a potential investor in your research may let you complete your 10 minute PowerPoint presentation, they have made up their mind before you even completed your first sentence... "A revolutionary device that creates power and/or beyond self-sustaining"

[D.R.Jackson]

I would have to comment that even with an over unity scenario, all energy has to come from somewhere.  It then becomes a matter of better understanding where there is energy to be tapped into and applied in an as of yet un-conceived of way, such that with the application of power to something, it triggers a processes that results in releasing this energy elsewhere in a system for use in the process.  In the end result the addition of this energy that is released is added to the input power to result in what appears to be a high level of output power.

In experiments that seem to work for me I realize that regardless of what people perceive to be the case, the reality still is that you can not get more energy out of a system than that which is in it, notice I did not say that which is being put into it, since there is other energy sometimes within the thing that external power is being applied to, hence it is then a matter of the sum of all energies in the system. E+1+2 etc.

http://overunity.com/17603/a-half-baked-idea-re-envisioned/msg516487/

[mrwayne]

Hello Dr Jackson,


Years ago, i was faced with the issue of defining Over-unity, I might be able to add insight to the discussion.


Each time I see statements with 'presuming energy can not be created or destroyed' I am dismayed at how that old belief limits the creativity and advancement of physics.


"Creation of energy" is not the only scope/answer that physics can understand, measure, repeat and replicate.


Creation as the only "option" limits the evaluation and innovators directing those to seek a "gain"... which is illogical.


10-10=3 is an obvious error, and no matter how you view the problem, you will not find the source of the 3..   


The single minded focus on "defining available energy from a closed system" as being "over-unity" is a self looping error in evaluation.


If one presumes that "energy must be created" than the only option currently available in knowledge of academia is 10-10=3 (It is a logical conclusion based on the limited information).   


Over unity is not the only option to generating energy, and the presumption that it is the only option is a serious 'lacking' of the current physics base of knowledge.


Generating "work" from a closed system requires one thing only - that a process is designed so that "opposite and equal" process is intentionally violated - or to be redundant - the process must not be designed as a conservation of work process.


Now the physics to do this come in two choices -  one which is false 10-10=3 (Gain), and the correct method is 10-7=3 (remainder).


I am not using the term energy - because energy is not a process:
"energy" - is certainly well understood in the laws of thermal dynamics, COE, and can not be created or destroyed.


Work from a closed system is not the same as energy from a closed system - the work available certainly has a energy "value" which can be used to quantify the work.


Why is work not the same thing? Work values can be altered without the alteration being attributed to loss and altered in reference to the 'relative reference planes'.


My Lab has successfully generated work available from many closed systems since 2008, which was relatively easy - the most challenging issue faced is dealing with those that can not mentally differentiate the limitations which apply to energy, and the limitations that apply to work.


"Work" as it is evaluated in physics appears to be a mirror to Energy (with equal limitations), yet work is conditional to the "reference plane" of the process - the teaching that the work required to lift a rock is the same as the work which can be preformed when dropping the rock has an underlying assumption that the relativity of the reference plan has not been altered.


In that case the 'driver' of the value of the work is relative to the value of the gravity (affecting the mass), and the underlying assumption is that gravity will remain constant in the process, the distance will remain the same.

When Work is performed, and the relative references within the process remains the same, the work is logically confined to the same physics principles that apply to energy.

The assumption that mass, distance, time, and gravity are 'fixed in a process' demonstrates that the knowledge of how to cause the alterations is not widely known, or included in the education system.


I will acknowledge that alterations of the relative reference planes in a process are not altered in nature, making it an observation that must be intentionally demonstrated - making its discovery, experiencing it and understanding it by most highly unlikely.


To add to the observation complexity; An altered process does not always 'present' as a physical alteration, but rather as a virtual "effect" and can only be realized when comparing to a standard reference plane [size=78%](the effect does not occur without intentional design). [/size]


In my company's closed looped - work producing systems, the alteration of time, distance, or mass or gravity can only be recognized when the process is compared to a relative reference plane. 
The knowledge of comparison is the key to the observation. 


Our first experiment demonstrated in 2008 showed that the same work could be performed with different inputs (with losses being equal). Those on the outside looked in vain for a gain which does not exist), we combined the two processes which resulted in available work, and then researched until we understood where the work was coming from. We have available work from a process that dos not have a single energy gain.   


That part is hard to understand - so i will try to make it clearer - you can not find a single function within our work generating systems that violates any known physics law - no gain can be measured in any single part of the process.


What you will find is that the total work produced is more than the cost to reset the systems: no gain, but a 'remainder' each cycle of the process. 10-7=3


The "7" is the unique part, the reset of the process was reduced by 30%(in that very first model), it was reduced do to the "relative reference planes of the operation were altered" by alternating between concentrated and un-concentrated relationships to gravity, which created a differential physical value between directions.


Everyone, included our own engineers looked feverishly for a gain... finally we realized we needed to include a comparative to the reference of a standard process - the simple and clear reason our systems had work available was the 10-7=3 (We wasted two years trying to find the "gain" in order to satisfy the physicists -which was the only answer they would accept at that time).


The difference between a "gain" and a "remainder" is critical in understanding how work can in fact be  generated from a closed system; designing for a remainder (is reducing the reset cost).

Reducing the reset cost results in a remainder - contrast that reality with the false idea that a gain is required.

Designing for a remainder may appear on the surface to be the same violation of "over-unity' and without the knowledge of how to alter the relative reference plane on only one direction of the process; I would expect any good physicist to rebuke without knowledge.


It is the rebuke without knowledge that is the error, not altered reference planes.


So if you want to define what appears to be over-unity on a working system - looking for a gain is a waste of time, determining why a remainder 'may be the cause" requires a deeper look, and require advanced training - not currently taught in any academia. 


To help others - determine the standard amount of energy to perform work and then compare that to each step of the system, you will not find any process that has in increase over the standard, and if you find you have a process that has a cost less than the standard in it - research the cause of the altered reference and amplify it in order to increase the differential. 


If you think you have found an altered reference - combining it with a standard process and capture the differential - you will have a loss in one direction (consumption of energy) and a remainder in the other direction (generation) - decide which you need.


Hope that helps future inventors.


MrWayne


     

[mondrasek]

Hello Wayne,

It has been a while since you last posted here.  I think the last time was when Mark E. passed...  What a sad and unexpected event that was for those of us who he was willing to try and assist.

Thank you for the lengthy and descriptive post.  It obviously took quite a bit of your time and effort!  I enjoyed reading it.  Even though I don't fully understand it.  But as you say, most will not, right?

I am still very interested to better understand your Energy systems.  I have tried several times and have always done so from the classical Engineering/Physics perspective that starts with the real world observation that ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED.

Unfortunately, if I do the math using the equations that define the universe based on that observation, I always get results that say what you would expect:  That energy cannot be created or destroyed. 

So it is kind of an infinite loop of logic!

Can you help me better to understand what you have learned?  Or perhaps show an actual experiment that displays the physical properties that I have yet to be able to grasp?

Thanks,

M.