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

[teslaedison]

Hello Guys,
     That are doing a great work but I would love to put my two sense into the pot if I may because I did an experiment with just distilled water by itself with the use of Paper clip and stainless steel spoon so if you are interested in how I did it by Tesla's AC with Edison's DC working together please contact me below at bottom of this message.

PS : Here is a video showing white pure H2 and O2 white cloud gases below

http://www.fliqz.com/aspx/permalink.aspx?at=5776ccb97e4a432d923e9b4186cad72e&a=177157c753114cd4a05ac46773477d7f

Also more information below too.
      You are not giving the totall account of Dr. Randell Mills processes which he says that the electrons are round shape disks when it comes to a positive proton that the electron wraps around it as a bubble so go check his explanation to what I totally believe is true web site below:
www.blacklightpower.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ymlc8nk7Mdk

PS if you have any questions about this to please contact me at any time so I can explain his processes which will evidently become the new wave of energy for the future of all of mankind !! 
Sincerely,
Thomas C.
Cell Number: 309-660-4627

[Aman Shah]

Ha Ha,Some inspirational words from me,if you want to know the reality!If you design your gravity powered engine logically with Balanced Energy process equation,then nobody will stop you from inventing a gravity Powered engine.

Defination of perpetual Motion Machine from Wikipedia:

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not. 


Gravity engines are possible,but Gravity powered Devices are Not Perpetual Motion Machines.

Well do you know what is the real problem.?

The problem is the dangerous cancerous virus called "Perpetual". Real Gravity engines are not perpetual and PMM do not exists.

People falsely stupidly relate Perpetual motion machines with "Gravity engines" without understanding about PMM (Perpetual Motion Machines)and how gravitational energy can be used to run a gravity engine.

The problem with most people is they do not think properly about the fundamental Principle involved in any Gravity engine which needs little Electrical energy supplied initially.

There are 95 percent chances that working Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Offcoarse this needs Innovative and detailing thinking power to design such a engine.

If you substract total Gravitational energy input from the energy needed to lift heavy balls up in a gravity wheel,you get some net gravitational energy which is the net energy input to the system(input after subtraction) which can be converted to electrical energy.This is the scientific basis for any real Gravity engine.And hence real Gravity engines are not perpetual and do not violate Laws of energy conservation,simply because these gravity engines will use gravitational energy as net input, for a balanced Energy equation.

Idiot People who do not believe in Gravity engines say that since you get more energy than supplied it violates physics and hence Gravity engines are impossible.

But the most worst thing is they do not consider the freely available hidden energy source in nature itself :The amplified larger quantity of gravitational energy used in innovative way than that of energy needed to lift heavy object up.

And the problem lies in cheaters claiming to invent/people attempting engines violating Laws of thermodynamics.
The Internet is full of around 100000 nonsense claims of Perpetual Motion Machines which are actually misguiding most people to believe that either gravity engines are not possible or are perpetual.

The words "gravity engines" themselves reveal that these engines use gravitational energy as input to engine.So there is no question of violating Energy conservation law.That is why I say Everytime that about 60 percet of world is going towards intelluctual drain.

I have putted my research work on Gravity engines here in a proper Format in few new webpages(not the older ones):

Sketch and explanation on: http://flic.kr/p/bycsbo

Further elaboration on:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5266

My blog with three articles as of now on

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/weblog.php?w=7

Here are few more threads I started regarding few more new ideas on Non-Perpetual Gravity wheels/engines:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5268

And

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5272

My simple experiments have proved that I am on right path.

Please do see these websites.All these are one of the few real scientific documents on"Real Non-Perpetual"Gravity Engines.

People have horrible confussions about gravity engines:

1) 50 percent People at many forums are not ready to accept gravity as a source of energy input and say that Gravity engines break laws of thermodynamics and cannot work.This is a illogical idea,as if people have stopped using their brains and are continuing listening to things others are telling,without validating those things themselves by thinking about it.
These people even do not know that gravitational energy is a usable source of free energy.

One example of these kind of people is

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/98119248301/p/25

They are not willing to accept the proof I have given.
Everytime they try to show the example/analogy of my engine/logical proof as wrong by wrongly Un-Succesfully manupulating it with failure to do so.By trying to prove me wrong ,they are actually violating laws of physics.
Another example is Science Hypography Science Forums who ban any post on Gravity powered engine inspite of giving real proof examples,because they do not want to accept the reality and want to stick to thinking that gravity engines cannot be made.No physics textbooks tells that gravitational energy is not source of energy,it only disagrees with concept of Perpetual Motion Machine.

One illogical explanation/comment from my Opponents: "Gravity is not energy source but it is a force".

I answered:"There is no force without Energy."
These opponents were actually violating the law of conservation of energy,as if no energy is needed to displace anything and anything will move on its own,from up to down.

2) 40 percent people think that Gravity engines are Perpetual,go against law of thermodynamics and are possible.But is actually not at all very correct.

3) 5 percent people either have no idea or have confusions about this.

4) 5 percent people have really understood logically and correctly that Gravity engines are possible and they cannot be perpetual because these engines use somehow gravitational energy as input energy and convert them to usable electrical power.And here you do not get more energy than that you actually totally put in to the system.I am in this category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------â€"------
Surprisingly,These percentage distribution results are too horrible and unbelievable to me.How most people including big post professors are making such big mistakes regarding understanding of gravity as source of power?This percentage results is clearly showing the brain drain /drain of intelluctuality that's happening in the world.

Converting Freely available energy from nature into other form of Freely available usable energy like electricity is not Perpetual provided you do not generate any magical new energy.
There is a difference between the words"conversion" and "generation".

[Aman Shah]

A good information on Real Free energy technologies is available on:

http://free-energy-info.co.uk/

[audiomaker]

2nd Post... here goes...

Ok, so my take on "Overunity" and "Free Energy" are such....

"Over Unity" means getting more energy out than is being put in.  Duh... right?  ... But let's examine that...

Most people consider this to mean a device that outputs more energy (usually electricity) than is being provided to the device.  This is IMPOSSIBLE.

All energy conversion devices require more energy than they provide to the end use.  The end usable energy available would be exactly the same except for losses...in a different form.

What a lot of people here are wishing to achieve is converting energy that we are not being charged for.... in money, nor effort or one that the net cost less in money or labor than the result would cost. This is why it is called "Free".

Consider this....

When I was 12, I started working on energy conversion ideas.  I put two ring magnets (about 1"OD X 1/4" ID) on a pencil and stuck the pencil into a block of styrofoam.   The two rings were arranged repelling.
The top ring was suspended about 3/4" above the lower ring.   I still have that experiment... I keep it as a motivational piece.   33 years later that top magnet is still floating.  I still have it.

At the time, I was studying potential vs kinetic energy in school (I went to some special schools).  I was always trying to decide whether this energy the two magnets was producing was potential or kinetic?
So which is it?  I decide on kinetic due to the fact that the magnets would spring apart if the space were compressed beyond the weight of of the upper ring.
Consider this like holding a ball in the air using a hose and water pressure.  The water pressure is kinetic even though at some point the ball will cease to gain altitude.

The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

That said, my paradox was that if this were true, then the table supporting a bowling ball was doing "work" just as holding a bowling ball in the air with your arm is doing "work".  Applying a force requires "work", and "work" requires energy.

One of course...has to factor time...

How much energy does it take to lift a 25klb school bus 1" in the air for 1 second?  Be it via lever or electric jack, how much does that second of lift cost?  If it's 50 men lifting it for that one second by hand, how much does it cost in calories?  How much does it cost in calories to lift it for 2 seconds instead?  How many calories to lift that bus up and down 10 times?

Ok, well my little 50cent ring magnets have lifted the weight of that school bus 100's if not thousands of times over when time is considered.  1 ounce of "thrust" for 33 years and still going.

This qualifies (in my book) as "Free Energy" as it cost no more than the original parts (2 magnets, pencil, styrofoam)... its a bargain at the very least, but it does not count as "OverUnity" because the force being produced by these magnets is the source, and they are always producing it.  There is no force coming out more than what is being applied, it's just nearly in expendable in nature.

This is why I always get bothered when folks quote the law of conservation when debunking "free energy" machines.   Just because a 50cent magnet arrangement can lift the equivalent weight many hundreds of thousands of times it's own weight over time doesn't mean energy isn't being "input".  It simply means it's not being paid for, and it's not exhausting.

Consider if you compressed the two magnets and it lifted the top one into the air and then had expended its energy and you had to recharge them to do it again.  You could then weigh the cost of having to recharge the magnets vs the work they did.  If the cost to recharge the magnets was less than the comparable "work", you'd then have an "Overunity" device that breaks the law of conservation.

That however is not the case.  We simply have a nearly inexhaustible source of energy with a near null cost vs work.

So you see, "Free Energy" does exist.  You do have to pay for the parts to convert it.   "OverUnity", in my best estimation... is impossible.

Regards

[TinselKoala]

Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

The thing is though, that bottom magnet just kept supporting the top magnet... day after day.  Year after year.  This, in my opinion is "work", and "work" requires energy in physics.

Work, in physics, is force times distance. Its units are ultimately the same as the units of energy in the Systeme Internationale (SI), that is, the Joule.
If you put a weight on a physical spring, the spring compresses and then just sits there, year after year..... but it's not doing work if the weight isn't moving due to an applied force. In your magnet situation you have a combination of 2 potential energies directed in opposite directions: The GPE of the lifted weight, and the magnetic potential energy of the "spring" of the repelling fields. The system is not moving... this is how you can tell that all the forces are in exact equilibrium!! Therefore no work is being done, in a physics sense.

When you first raise up the top magnet, you have input work by raising the magnet against the earth's gravity... giving it more GPE. When you release the magnet, it moves: converting some of the GPE into real work, which is done against the opposing MPE of the repelling magnetic fields. That is, the GPE must do work against the MPE. When the system stops moving, you are at a point where the downward force produced by gravity on the mass of the object, is exactly equalized by the upward force produced by the repelling fields. You can bounce around this point and see that both fields are conservative: if your rod was frictionless and you were in a vacuum with no drag, you could give the thing a bop and it would bobble forever (but radiating energy as EM vibrations so would eventually stop moving.... when all the energy (the force of your bop times the distance you applied it-- work -- ) you provided from your initial bop was radiated away.) In the real system, I'm sure you have bopped it plenty of times over the years and watched it bounce a bit. Friction against the rod converted the work of your bop into heat and tiny leeetle pieces of sawdust, so the bouncing stopped pretty fast and the system came back into motionless -- and workless -- equilibrium, still storing the initial work you put into it all those years ago when you raised up that upper magnet to put it in place. You can get it back at any time though: when you lift the upper magnet up off the rod, the magnetic field repulsion will "help" you and you will be doing less work than if the field wasn't repelling.

ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!