Newsflash: Overunity is impossible

[allcanadian]

@tinu

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.

Tinu, your first mistake is believing equations are a substitute for real experiments, if you would have performed real experiments you would understand how nature works. Dampening a node will load the source, resonant compression or expansion of any or all nodes will not. As well resonant action at the fulcrum (the base) of a tuning fork cannot and will not dampen an external  source of oscillation. Place one or one hundred tuning forks against a guitar so that only the base of the tuning fork touches it firmly and pluck a string at the resonant frequency of the tuning fork(s). Here is another "real" experiment I have performed where your calculations fail miserably, attach a small pager motor/vibrator to the end 24" long copper rod of 1/4" diameter. Place the other end of the rod in a heavy holder of some sort such as a vice which will not dampen the oscillations. Attach this holder rigidly to a large resonant object which in my case was a rubber mounted 3/4" thick table top measuring 24" x 96". When the motor/vibrator is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the rod and the rod is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the table top you will see something your calculations could never predict. How can a pager motor/vibrator drawing a few mA at 3v move 5 pound objects across a perfectly level surface? How can a few mA cause steel straps which have their ends corresponding to the nodes of the table jump an inch or more from the surface of the table? How can a few mA cause rotation of a mass around fixed points from linear motion?.Why will sand sprinkled on the table top move and concentrate at the nodes to show you exactly where they are, LOL?.In this case the energy input to the system has no relation to the total work performed as all of these examples above occured simultaneously from a mA source input. If you use a few simple calculations ie--- F=ma,W=FxD, E=1/2mv2 you will find the "work" performed through the motion of the many masses on the table can be hundreds of times greater than the input. Tesla knew this 100 years ago, LOL, and he proved this matter for himself through experiment and calculation.
Regards
AC

[Steven Dufresne]

@allcanadian,
Neat experiment you did. Was there a difference in frequency between the pager and all the things going on on the table? i.e. could it be possible that the pager was inserting energy at a high frequency but was being extracted by the things on the table at a low frequency meaning that the pager was inputing small amounts of energy over a comparitively long period of time which was then being extracted in bursts? I don't know the answer. I'm posing a possibility for elimination - or not.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org

[The Observer]

Tinu my man,

Thanks for your picking up where NewsFlash has left off. (I guess he could be doing something fun this weekend.)
This is a debate that needs to be explored thoroughly.

I am so glad you brought up Q factor.
If you read a previous post, I explain this to NewsFlash to prove that a resonant system stores energy.

To reiterate... Q =2*Pi*(Energy Stored/Energy Dissipated per cycle)

This is the conundrum you need to seriously consider.

Again... Low Q = Low amount of energy stored... High Q = High amount of energy stored,

Now you say...

   

" 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."

I say... It's a tuning fork. A high Q is implied when talking about tuning forks !

Then you say...

     2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.

I say.... How in God's name do you come up with that?

My guess is that you believe all sources of Energy have been discovered and must be paid for with cash.
                                                                                       ... and deduce from that, that the second fork acts like a lever on the 1st.

This, my friend, is not how waves work.
To be more concise... Waves do not act like Levers.

Briefly........... You do not and cannot dampen anything by impinging it's natural frequency upon it !
                        This means when the second 440 Hz Fork rings... it creates a vibrational wave of... hope you know, 440 HZ.
                        When this 440 HZ wave from the second fork reaches the first fork (with a natural frequency of 440 HZ) it can only reinforce it's vibration.

Just to be sure... you don't think this all takes place instantaneously?
To be clear...
     
                        Step 1... the 1st fork is struck... it vibrates at it's natural frequency.
                        Step 2... a wave in the medium of air is created with a frequency of 440 HZ.
                        Step 3... the wave travels at a certain speed (340.29 meters per second) in all directions...
                        Step 4... a small fraction of  that wave encounters the 2nd tuning fork
                        Step 5... because this wave is the natural frequency of the 2nd fork, it stores the wave energy depending on it's Q, and begins to vibrate.
                        Step 6... Refer to Step 3 to see what happens here.
                        Step 7... a small fraction of the wave (440 HZ) leaving the 2nd tuning fork encounters the 1st fork.
                        Step 8... because the wave is the natural frequency of the 1st fork, it stores the wave depending on it's Q, and begins to vibrate.

Please tell me how a wave of an object's natural frequency can dampen the energy it already has?  Steps would be appreciated.

Then you mention....

"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. "

The nodes of a guitar string strummed are at the ends of the string.
The antinode is in center of the string.
When the string is strummed... it vibrates at it's 1st and fundamental harmonic.

Yes the first harmonic's wavelength is 2X the length of the string.
   That is because the wave is reflected upon itself... not into the front the guitar as if the string was longer than it appears to the eye.
       
Next...

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.

You do not get that the vibration is stored in the air.
  That's the point of playing the electric guitar not plugged in.
     It has solid body. There is no forced resonance in an air chamber.
         That is why you can barely hear it.
             It is the reason there is an air chamber in and Acoustic Guitar... not a flat piece of thin wood that would work like you are saying it "wood". lol
           
Lastly,

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?! 

A guitar is an EXAMPLE of Forced Resonance... That is what I am talking about.
                                                                                       That is why I mention the swing in a previous post.
                                                                                       That is why I bring up tuning forks. (also to prove to you that sound energy travels through the air)

This is what I am discussing.

        The fact that in a forced resonant situation where the 2nd object possesses a High Q, energy is stored in the 2nd object.
        The fact that the 2nd object vibrates at an amplitude equal to the energy it is able to store (Q Value).
        The fact that the amplitude of the waves the 2nd object emanates is greater than the amplitude of the wave of the driving or first object.

As it relates to the guitar... the string is the 1st object.... the hollow air filled body of the guitar is the 2nd object.

Well, I think that about wraps it up.

Please keep it going... I will find other ways to explain it if nothing here resonates with you. ;o)

Thank You for Thinking,

                                         The Observer

[spinner]

Nice... Similar threads are a constant, a periodical stuff like day/night exchange.

Yes, "OU" is certainly impossible, if one looks at what physics find out to date. Those damned thermodynamic laws...

It's all about the definition itself (strict rules about the "system confinements", inputs and outputs...), the conservation of energy principle, (bla bla bla....), and the fact that the thing is definitely working (so far, 100%).

"Overunity" term was originally used by the "orthodox scientists", who were discussing different (let's say impossible) scenarios about energy and conversions.  Like when you get out more than "anyone anytime" put in....Thought experiments, coffee chats, etc...
Later, the term was adopted by many experimenters, seeking the Holly Grail of an Energy creation..

Btw, i don't mind if this site is using the "OU" name... For me, it is just a way of search for the new energy sources...

Newsflash & Tinu..are right. Of course, that does not mean that somebody can't overturn this understanding.

Simply, a decent proof is all what is needed.... Not just the theory (they are -mostly- very "cheap")...But a proof of a  concept" is still a little hard task, it seems..?

Luckily, a lot of people here understands that a "similar to OU" behaviour could become possible even with a (currently) unrecognised (new?) energy source....
No problem, just build something which definitely shows an "Overunity". We'll deal with the definitions later... If the "bullet proof" principles will fail, who cares???!

Please, don't mention the "CoP" stuff (this is just a special description of a thermodynamic system with a recognised inputs - not OU..).

Hey, an acoustic resonator is discussed as a case of OU? LOL.... This stuff was understood long ago..?

Like soldiers marching over the bridge, an opera singer breaking a champagne glass,... etc?
An ideal (the one it does not exist) acoustic (or EM,..) resonator should perform like an "Unity" ....
Where  ALL the INPUT ENERGY is converted to an OUTPUT (mechanical motion)?
Look at a pendulum experiments.... Put it in a vacuum chamber, and try the resonance principles.... Different frequencies, but only one which can get you to the unity....
Then, try to get some usefull work out of it.  ?

I admit that some guitar performers have a divine stile, but still....     "OU guitars"?   
Cheers!

[Charlie_V]

Tinu, your first mistake is believing equations are a substitute for real experiments, if you would have performed real experiments you would understand how nature works. Dampening a node will load the source, resonant compression or expansion of any or all nodes will not. As well resonant action at the fulcrum (the base) of a tuning fork cannot and will not dampen an external  source of oscillation. Place one or one hundred tuning forks against a guitar so that only the base of the tuning fork touches it firmly and pluck a string at the resonant frequency of the tuning fork(s). Here is another "real" experiment I have performed where your calculations fail miserably, attach a small pager motor/vibrator to the end 24" long copper rod of 1/4" diameter. Place the other end of the rod in a heavy holder of some sort such as a vice which will not dampen the oscillations. Attach this holder rigidly to a large resonant object which in my case was a rubber mounted 3/4" thick table top measuring 24" x 96". When the motor/vibrator is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the rod and the rod is adjusted to the resonant frequency of the table top you will see something your calculations could never predict. How can a pager motor/vibrator drawing a few mA at 3v move 5 pound objects across a perfectly level surface? How can a few mA cause steel straps which have their ends corresponding to the nodes of the table jump an inch or more from the surface of the table? How can a few mA cause rotation of a mass around fixed points from linear motion?.Why will sand sprinkled on the table top move and concentrate at the nodes to show you exactly where they are, LOL?.In this case the energy input to the system has no relation to the total work performed as all of these examples above occured simultaneously from a mA source input. If you use a few simple calculations ie--- F=ma,W=FxD, E=1/2mv2 you will find the "work" performed through the motion of the many masses on the table can be hundreds of times greater than the input. Tesla knew this 100 years ago, LOL, and he proved this matter for himself through experiment and calculation.
Regards
AC

@ Allcanadian

What you described IS the Tesla system.  Two resonant objects having the same resonant frequency but vastly mismatched impedances (whether electric or acoustic).  The intensity of the vibrations can be made extremely large with such a setup - this is why Tesla coils arc!