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

[alan]

Humans aren't animals, most of us are reprobate sinners and therefore look like beasts to others. Thank God for the Cross, by his stripes we are healed from this sickness. 
'vanity, definitely someones favorite sin'

[pauldude000]

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.

Sorry, thought I would jump in on this one. Overunity, by definition, is the Coefficient Of Power (COP)>1 within a closed system, which, within a closed system should not be possible. The equations should balance upon both sides.


Everything is fine unless a system is demonstrated that seems to show COP>1 -- at this point a person assumes that the laws of physics are being violated, by training. The problem with this logic is that it is not the only possibility, therefore is an example of an Appeal to Probability, assuming that all conditions for the particular law of thermodynamics are met in order for the law to apply.  Also, the accuracy of the base assumptions must be questioned as well. What, you may ask?


It has to be a closed system, in that all inputs of energy HAVE TO BE KNOWN and accounted for. The purpose for shielding in electronics is to remove energy coming in from outside a circuit, for example. If the outside source is unknown on an unshielded circuit, then COP>1 seems to be broached, but in fact has not. In this case, the "system" under examination is too small in scope. 


Overunity does not and cannot exist in reality, and has no bearing upon how much energy is intended to flow in the system, but is determined by whatever energy can act upon a system, intentional and unintentional, known or unknown.


The problem with measurement comes in base assumptions. Heat, for instance, is a very poor standard to use to measure energy within a system. For instance, place 1 gram of water in a beaker over a bunsen burner and raise that water one degree Celsius and you have expended one calorie. Right? Wrong. Most of the heat applied by the flame from the burner is lost to the environment and absorbed by the glass container itself. The concept of the system is extremely lossy and inefficient so is not a good standard to use to measure. Even with different heat systems measuring energy use is inefficient due to the properties of heat itself (rises in a material preventing even heating over time, does not spread evenly, etc., etc., etc.)


This breaks down to a problem in that COP>1 can simply be due to an efficient system in comparison against an inherently inefficient measuring standard.


The knee jerk illogical response is to just assume whoever thinks they have achieved overunity is somehow a scammer or an idiot, another appeal to probability.


Assuming that all possible forms of energy are known is just modernistic egotism and has nothing to do with actual logic OR science. It breaks down to proof by assertion combined with an appeal to probability, fallacy of the single cause, all based upon an appeal to incredulity. If that fails, then the position changes to an appeal to the stone followed by an appeal to ignorance.


Unfortunately, that summates much of what passes for modern skepticism as well in most cases I have seen. There is no real logic or reason involved, the positions are mostly derived emotionally instead of evidentially driven. An evidentially driven conclusion is derived despite one's current understanding: specifically the data creates and modifies the conclusions instead of being viewed in a manner that fits any particular conclusion.


As far as energy neither being created nor destroyed? Someone better inform the proponents and adherents of the Big Bang theory about that.


Paul Andrulis

[stivep]

Dear Paul Andrulis

You presented absolutely amazing language skills.
- great confidence in logic, or to say, art.

Thank you very much for your comment.
Wesley

[r2fpl]

In fact, we are looking for a fuel that costs nothing or very little.
Nobody wants to overthrow the laws of physics with superunity, although this law is only temporary.
Our universe is expanding so how does this affect energy?
Is it increasing too? or maybe it reduces? or maybe it's the same all the time?
I'm not interested in the universe because I don't know what's on the tip of my nose.
These are all just laws in which we find ourselves. If they are changed, we may not notice it because we are here.
The gravitational attraction is 0.9 and the other on Saturn so it's not a law but a dependence but you say it's also a law so why COP> 1 can't exist?

It depends what you think is COP> 1.

[stivep]

we are looking for a fuel that costs
Nobody wants to overthrow the laws of physics with superunity, although this law is only temporary.
Our universe is expanding so how does this affect energy?

Universe DOES NOT gain more energy through its expansion.https://www.quora.com/Is-energy-increasing-with-the-expansion-of-the-universehttps://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-does-the-expanding-universe-affect-matter-energy.770884/

//laws we find ourselves. If they are changed, we may not notice it because we are here.

If you make an experiment that violates the laws of physics, you just caused a change in the laws of physics. You would know it and we will check it.
-We May Make Changes you only originate them.

The gravitational attraction is 0.9 and the other on Saturn so it's not a law but a dependence but you say it's also a law so why COP> 1 can't exist?
It depends what you think is COP> 1.

Even though Saturn has much more mass than Earth, second in the Solar System only to Jupiter, it also has the lowest density of all the planets in the Solar System. When you spread that mass across the entire volume of Saturn, the actual gravity pulling at any spot on the surface is only 91% of Earth's gravity. In other words, if your bathroom scale said 100 kg on Earth, it would say 92 kg on the "surface" of Saturn.

https://www.universetoday.com/15323/gravity-on-saturn/

"In physics, the relationship between mass and energy in a rest frame of the system is the mass-energy equivalence, in which two values can only be different by the unit of measurement and a constant. Mass-energy equivalence implies that, even though the total mass of a system changes, the total energy and momentum remain constant"
https://www.vedantu.com/physics/mass-energy-equivalence

conclusion:
energy can turn to mass and reverse.
It's not that mass and energy "can change back and forth". They are literally equivalent ways of talking about the same thing (assuming the particle is not moving). If something has mass than it also has energy and vice-versa.
By that you can't get more energy from mass and reverse.
So overunity is just an absurd of few individuals in this forum too.
_{COP> 1. can only be seen as local phenomena:
e.g your boss paid you today..}
where nobody knows that you had work  for it 1 week.
_{-however world of finances has so many exclusion from world of physics,
and can joke from it.}
Wesley