Newsflash: Overunity is impossible

[Tito L. Oracion]

hi newsflash take a look at this

how can you explain this?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0


God Bless
otits

[tinu]

hi newsflash take a look at this

how can you explain this?


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0


God Bless
otits

1st: inertia  and generator-motor behavior;
2nd: fake 

please don't mention the crackpots and sand-builders again, ok? they really don't deserve much attention until they show something that has at least some minimal value. are you one of their followers?!

[tinu]

"Sound hears much louder"?  I hope English is not your native tongue.

No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?

I challenge your assessment of the guitar example as childish and wrong.

Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.

Since you mentioned child... I will have to bring up another simple example of resonance.

                                Are you familiar with tuning forks?

Question 1... 1 fork a has a natural frequency of 440 H.z      the second a natural frequency of  400 Hz.

                           I ring the 440 Hz fork... does the 400 fork ring?   Please answer this because I want to know if you have a clue.

Question 2... 1 fork has a natural frequency of 440 HZ    the second has a natural frequency of 440 Hz

                           I ring the 1st 440 Hz fork... does the second 440 Hz ring?   Please answer this.

Question 3... Provided you got Question 1 and 2 right.

                           How does energy transfer from 1 fork to the other and why does the second fork ring in only 1 instance?

                                                I understand what you think.
                                                You think the end of the string pulls on the body of the guitar causing it to vibrate.
                                                Am I right?

What you don't understand is the nature of waves and nodes.
The string vibrates most at it's antinode.(the middle of the string) and not at all at it's 2 nodes (the ends of the string)

The energy is passed into the body of the guitar through the air as a wave or vibration.
Then the body of the guitar stores the air vibrations just like the swing I mentioned earlier.
Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.
...

Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!

I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.”. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?! 

Cheers,
Tinu

[Liberty]

No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?
Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.

Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!

I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.

I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.”. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?! 

Cheers,
Tinu

From a reasoning point of view, I do not see that resonance can produce any excess energy or an energy that comes from another source that does not need to be paid back if a load is placed on it.  Therefore, I do not see a source of energy to obtain energy from, with resonance.  It is basically a frequency trap.  A permanent magnet however does produce a magnetic field which is continuous without any known outside source of power being needed for this to continue, even under a load.  The issue for science seems to be that there is not a method known yet to tap into this energy at an overall gain, so it therefore must not be possible until proven otherwise.

I can't think of any other natural thing that continuously produces without external power input, an energy (similar to an electromagnet which requires electrical power input), like a permanent magnet.  It appears to me that the way a permanent magnet internally operates, may be a type of  overunity device.  (Having potential for more power out than directed input energy).  What is needed, is to understand how to tap this potential atomic energy at an overall gain.

[Bulbz]

It wouldn't. The Universe is and always will be. It has always existed. It was not "created".. Its energy is simply circulated and transferred.

A lot of scientists believe this. And even if you don't, there is also the BIG BANG theory (most common). You know, something that ALREADY EXISTED exploded into a Universe. Hence, there is no original creation, just transfer of matter. The Universe EXPLODED into existence, exploded from something else that already existed.

OVERUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. Free energy is possible, to the point where it's never practically going to run out, because there is such a vast amount of energy in the Universe from which to use.

But energy out of nothing? No. There will always be a source.

Well if energy is simply circulated and transferred, that is overunity !