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

[Pirate88179]

@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill

[captainpecan]

@Bill

Your exactly right, that bowling ball had potential energy stored in it.  Which is the reason it all adds up to Unity.  Without that potential, the other forms of energy could not have entered into the equation causing the glasses to shatter.  Like if the bowling ball was sitting right next to the glasses, touching them. Then if you touched it, it would simply transfer the energy of the touch to the glasses, and they would not shatter, they would just get pushed a little.

I think you and I view it all pretty much exactly the same, although terminology may differ slightly from time to time.

I would like to hear what Spark's has to say on this issue!  I always like following his posts, as there seems to always be something interesting, and he always presents his knowledge in a way that gets me thinking... !

[dean_mcgowan]

One way to think of it the way I see it.

Picture a bowling ball resting at the top of a steep incline.  At the bottom of the incline is a bunch of glass glasses.  Now if you were to exert a tiny little push with your finger on those glasses, they may move a tiny bit. Nothing great.  But if you were to exert the exact same little push on the bowling ball, it would roll forward, begin rolling down the incline picking up extra energy from gravity, momentum, and whatever else.  Now what happens to those glasses when the bowling ball hits them...  They all shatter!

With this example, the exact same amount of force was put into touching the glasses with your finger, as was put into touching the bowling ball with your finger.  But the energy the bowling ball exerted was much different.

Now, with this example, the extra energy that bowling ball gained on it's way to the glasses was free energy.  "Available" energy that it gained along the way.  You did not ad this energy.  It entered the system by other means.  Although you ended up with much more force hitting the glasses than you put into pushing the bowling ball, it is not over-unity.  If you only figured in the amount of force you exerted, and compared it to the amount of force the bowling ball exerted, then it surely would show over-unity.  But that would be an incorrect way of figuring it.  Over-Unity is measured by all forces entering the equation, compared to all forces leaving the equation.  So if you compare the force that was exerted on the glasses and whatever else it took to make the bowling ball stop, with the force you exerted on the bowling ball, and all the forces of gravity, and momentum, and any other energies that made the bowling ball move...  You end up with exactly Unity!

Free Energy... yes...  Over-Unity.. no...

Perpetual Motion may be possible, due to a system being at exact unity, except for one thing.  The little word "forever" that is added to it's definition.  Perpetual Motion machines must run "forever" without ever stopping.  We have not invented a way to eliminate all forms of friction and resistance, so even if you were to get a device to run for 500yrs before it stopped, it is still going to eventually wear out and stop, thus meaning it is not perpetual motion.  I really wish this term did not get associated with "free energy", as I believe this is one of the reasons that "free energy buffs" get so much ridicule.

You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.

[dean_mcgowan]

@ Captainpecan:

In your bowling ball/glasses scenario, which I am sure you already know, the bowling ball at the top of the incline had potential energy which was stored when it was lifted up there in the first place.  The finger touch released this energy and, as you said, unity was observed.  This may be why the term itself  "overunity" is probably fundamentally flawed.  If you make a circuit that produces more total energy out than in, we would call it overunity....but, and I think you and I agree on this, the energy is coming from somewhere into the system.  The fact that we don't/can't know where it is coming from does still not stop us from using the device, all we know is that it works.  If the energy enters the system from a previously unknown and untapped source, unity is still observed.  This is why I think we need at least one other term instead of overunity.

The same thing with perpetual motion.  Yes, that little disclaimer there on the end kills it all doesn't it? (forever)  My problem is that "forever" is not a scientific term and has no real time based value (other than infinity) so why do we/they add that to the definition?  Even my example of the electrons in orbit in an atom would not qualify because one day, all matter in the universe might cease to exist and therefore it would not be "forever".

I would like to see us come up with other, better, more exact terminology to describe these types of things.  As you said, this would possibly separate us from the "bad press" that we seem to get from folks calling us kooks attempting to do the impossible.

@ TechStuf:

Interesting point you make here.  I was involved in a discussion with someone in college once and this very thing came up.  The guy's response to my raising this issure was.."Umm....well.....except for then." (Meaning the big bang)  They can't have it both ways can they?

Bill

Perpetual motion might best be described as a lossless closed system. Again though this defies the 3rd law...

[captainpecan]

You are ignoring the potential energy placed in the ball by raising it to the top of the incline.

Your idea only works if the ball the incline and the glasses all materialised out of the ether spontaneously.

And this is my point regarding earth batteries or any other system you may propose.

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.