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

[hansvonlieven]

Hi Bill, Greetings

The answer to your question is simple.

One tit that never dries up is free energy!

Two tits that never dry up is overunity!

See, I told you it was simple. 

Hans

[captainpecan]

@Hans

By George, I think he's got it!!!!!!!!   Throw in a beer keg that never runs out and I'm home free!!!!

[Pirate88179]

Hi Bill, Greetings

The answer to your question is simple.

One tit that never dries up is free energy!

Two tits that never dry up is overunity!

See, I told you it was simple. 

Hans

Thanks Hans!  That was classic.  (smile) Or should I say....Thanks for the mammorys.  (sorry)


Bill

[wings]

Until the Earth is depleted of charge!  Will we lose our magnetic field then?  The magnetic field is vital to keeping some deadly radiation from reaching our planet's surface, so we really need that field to stay on.

   
I agree with what you say, I think that the free energy is also the source of life on earth.

DNA double helix .......

[dean_mcgowan]

No, I never ignored it.  I just forgot to mention it.  I answered that one in a later post, as Bill was quick to point it out also...  .  The example is not meant to show Over-Unity, only to show my definition of what energy could be called "free" energy.  I was referring to the extra energy that showed it's head making the ball roll with more velocity.  It was energy that was always there to begin with, hince, no over-unity. I am terming it as "free" energy only because it was "available" energy you could not see and you did not exert onto the object to start with.  It was energy that was once just "available", but now was "used".  Just a simple example that will exert more force into the glasses, than the force put into the bowling ball.  There still was no gain in overall energy, that was kind of the point... It just appears to have more energy out then in. In actuality, it's still just Unity as always.


From your posts, I get the feeling you believe it is impossible to have free energy, over-unity, or perpetual motion?  Is this really your beliefs?  If not, please explain where you think the energy is going to come from to make a valid free energy device.

Ok, I imagine it this way :

Imagine the fabric of space has tiny holes in it, much too small for energy to escape through, say like a balloon with sand in it which has a small hole
with a diameter smaller than a grain of sand. I imagine that we create 2 small hooks and insert them either side of the hole and use enough force to
open the hole just wide enough for energy/sand to escape. Not unlike the idea of the cavemen gently pushing the bolder. However the rules as they are would
require that equilibrium is achieved therefore i think that we need another balloon/hole configuration to allow the flow of sand to continue back into the system
with maybe a water wheel in between the two balloons to capture/convert the flow, like interrupting the the flow of a river / wind etc. into usable energy.

The main flaw i see in most designs is that much like the spark gap ideas, people are widening the hole and creating a water wheel but are not directing the
flow by providing a sink for the energy to return to. Its like they are exploding a firework and trying to capture only a few of the sparks from one sector and the rest of the energy returns back to its source point.

I suppose the analogy is kind of childlike but I hope that it expresses my view on the matter.

Regards,

Dean