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

[pauldude000]

I am involved with several topics on this site and the question always seems to come up:  What is free energy? And: What is overunity?

I know we are all here looking for it but how can we find it if we can't agree on what it is?  To me, I think it is a given that energy can't be created or destroyed.  Having said that, I believe there are some "free energy" deices working right now.  My earth battery is but one, and I know of several others....depending on your definition of "free energy".

My earth batteries generate power with no input from me.  To me, this is "free energy".  The guy with the water wheel living by a river is getting "free energy" to him, and he can power whatever he wants from it.  Windmills, the same thing.
Also solar, etc.

So, my definition of these devices as "free energy" does not mean the power comes from nowhere.  We know where it comes from, and it fits all of the known laws of physics.  But, is this still "free energy"?  I believe it is.

Hans Von Lieven once said that if one were to touch a match to a puddle of crude oil leaking from the ground, it would ignite and produce heat and light, all for the effort of striking the match.  So, these could be seen as both "free energy" and "overunity" by some folks.  Of course it is burning hydrocarbons and this reaction is well known so the energy is not coming from nowhere, but, we do need to define our parameters if we are hoping to find new power sources.

So, my purpose of this topic is to help open a dialog on what the parameters are for that which we all are searching for.  what is "free energy" and what is "overunity?

Please feel free to post any and all ideas on this subject.  Without a clear definition that we all agree upon,  how will we know if we find it or not?  Thank you.

Bill

Let me be as clear as I possibly can. Any device that either generates or converts energy is an under-unity or at best a unity device. There is a logical "battery" unaccounted for, somewhere in the equation, to make the statement of overunity, or COP>1. For instance, if a device is drawing from the zero point field, then the zero point field is the battery, and the device is woefully inefficient if the output is less than an atomic blast of huge proportion. (That is how much energy is supposed to be in that particular battery, and at unity would equal a sudden release of all the stored energy.)


As far as "work", the logic behind the current definition is biased so as to negate the possibility of perpetual motion. However, the actual definition of "work"........, I am not saying this lightly. The word has many different definitions in science, from general physics, electrical, and thermodynamic.


An example from wikipedia under Work (Thermodynamics):

In [/size]thermodynamics[/font][/size], [/size]work[/size] performed by a [/size]closed system[/font][/size] is the [/size]energy[/font][/size] transferred to another system that is measured by the external generalized mechanical constraints on the system. Essential to the thermodynamic concept of work is that the energy transfer in fictive principle be able to occur at a finite rate without any of it necessarily being dissipated by friction or chemical degradation, which are necessarily dissipative.[/size]

If you find yourself using the terms "open system" or "closed system" you are referring to principles of thermodynamics, and the thermodynamic definition is the usable and accurate definition. Work does not necessarily involve motion, just energy transfer. Where work becomes hard to measure is in the application of constant energy transfer, such as gravity of magnetism, or the proverbial kitchen table. Though energy is being transferred, it is difficult to conceive as work being done.


This is causal of a misapplication of logic. Measuring expected motion (current usage of work) is one of TWO equally important concepts. Motion where there should be motion is the obvious use, but LACK OF MOTION where there should be motion is just as measurable, and just as applicable! (Or for that matter motion where there should not be motion.)


As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


On another subject, your thoughts about "free energy" I find highly logical. "Free energy" is indeed energy which is free (costs nothing) to produce. It is an economic term, and not a scientific term. Many forms of free energy exist, such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, water, etc,. These indeed are all free energy sources.


Free energy only has meaning when limited resources must be used to generate the energy, otherwise the term is nonsensical.


Paul Andrulis

[audiomaker]

I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill

Yes, exactly.   One has to determine if the force separating the floating magnets is "thrust", or "potential energy", and you are correct about the table but who is to say it isn't true?
There is energy in that table... a very important energy to anyone who wishes to be more than a scattered cloud of random atoms.   

At first glance, the suspended magnet display is an example of potential energy... like a spring.   The two fields seek a state of equilibrium in pattern per magnet.  The interaction attempts to displace this natural state and hence a counter force is sustained until returned to that state (i.e.... pulling a guitar string and holding it for 33 years).  Is this the case with magnetic fields?  I'm not sure.

The magnet does indeed have properties that make one think of it in this way, but also has properties of gravity and electricity.  Is a magnet field a spring trying to return to it's natural state, or is a magnet producing actual "attraction" such as gravity?   If two magnets are "attracted", then the reverse would be "repulsion" or..... "Thrust".   "Thrust", aside from the physics definition, in my book requires "work" even once an equilibrium with the thrusted object is achieved.

If attraction or repulsion are the case, then I would suggest that both require energy and a constant supply of it, and that is the important thing to key on.

This of course is more than semantics in the world of OU.  Which concept you subscribe to, and of course which concept is accurate has a huge bearing on the potential success of many OU projects.

It is the very basis of conceptualizing magnetic OU machine since if the magnets behaves as a spring, there is absolutely no way to arrange any shape or configuration of springs that will obtain continuous and long term motion.

If magnets produce "Thrust" (which I believe they do), then permanent magnet engines are at least possible, and both the magnet....and the table... are doing "work" with the difference being that the table is unable to  do work outside of it's own structure.

This is an important distinction to consider.

All the Best
P.S.  Bill, sorry.  I didn't mean to hijack your thread. I'm not that bright sometimes.

[audiomaker]

<snip>

As an example, a new look at an old concept:


Stick a magnet to the side of the proverbial fridge. If no work is being done by the magnetic field of the magnet, then it should be at the whim of all other forces applying work upon it. It should therefore fall to the floor at a rate of acceleration of 9.18 meters/sec/sec due to gravity. However, the magnet does stay in place, defying the work applied to it.


We then observe a LACK OF MOTION where there should indeed be motion. We can then measure the amount of work required (by the magnetic field) to overcome the applied force (gravity).


The usage of the definition within thermodynamics is quantitatively more accurate than as used in simple physics or as used electrically. It encompasses inherently work which cannot be seen.


An invisible field applying energy to move an object from point a to point b is doing work, yet another force applying equal energy to the same object to move it from b to a is also doing work. The object itself may not be moving, but work is still being accomplished as energy is being transferred within the system.


<snip)

Paul Andrulis

YES!

[pauldude000]

I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill

Only if using the definition of work from general physics, but in that case you would not have to be concerned with open or closed systems. 


If using the definition from thermodynamics, since even at equilibrium energy is being transferred to maintain said equilibrium, which itself affects the physical constraints of the system without the energy transference in the form of friction or heat then yes work is being done at equilibrium. 

[pauldude000]

I have in the past considered deeply what I am about to share, and maybe it will give pause for consideration.


For something to contain potential energy is equivalent in concept to a woman being potentially pregnant...... 


Either she is, or she is not, cannot have it both ways. Equivalently, either real energy exists in a system, or it does not, so how can it be logically stated as potential? 


Example:


Consider a simple circuit containing just a battery and a light bulb connected to said battery. Laying beside the first battery is a second battery, unconnected to the circuit in any way. Do we then count the battery as energy in the system?


So called "potential energy" only holds the designation of "potential" due to the fact it is not actively connected to the system being considered, like a battery with no leads attached to the circuit.


However, the proverbial rock on the side of a mountain HAS no energy not inherent to its mass UNTIL it moves. That is not "potential" anything. That is a LACK of energy. Gravity is constantly performing work upon the rock and the mountain both, but until the rock starts to move it has no energy transferred to itself from gravity. Once the rock starts to move it gains energy from the acceleration placed upon it.


The rock is not the same as the "cocked spring" concept, as the spring itself contains energy when cocked and is constantly exerting measurable force. Otherwise the spring when "un-cocked" contains no energy in the same manner as the stationary rock.


Consider two identical tables. One has nothing upon it, the other has a thousand pounds of lead stacked on it. Which will collapse sooner? The lead itself is doing no work and has no energy, but gravity accelerating the lead and the table resisting the acceleration are and do. The lead is actually resisting a change in it's present motionlessness due to inertia (objects at rest tend to stay at rest).


If no kinetic energy is being exchanged in the system, then why would the table with lead structurally fail before the identical table with no lead?


It is not anyones fault here if you find yourself saying something to the effect of "What the.....(bleep)?"


These concepts may cause everyone to consider the issue a little deeper. Too see just how deep the problem with definitions actually is in physics, examine this link: Specifically the entries on Energy, and Energy (take 2).,


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm


See if you can find the errors, such as when he derides others for their misuse of the concept, then himself does exactly what he accuses them of. There are numerous logical flaws in these two entries.


Paul Andrulis