Over Unity Basics

[ferball]

I am not a professional nor academic, I am just dabbler and tinker.  So my understanding from my basic physics back ground is that matter/energy is neither created nor destroyed just changes state.  Over unity is impossible because of energy lost as friction and heat.  I believe this to be true as it logically makes sense to me.  However I believe that an Over Unity "effect" can be achieved by tapping "free" external power sources. Solar panels are an obvious example.  Creating energy from the "free" energy of the sun.  I simple crystal type radio receiver also displays over unity properties as the power for the unit comes from the radio signal itself.

I believe if we are going to achieve over unity it will be demonstrated in a simple proof of concept "engine".  The more complicated and highly tuned the proof of concept device the less likely that there is a true over unity.  I believe that proof of concept will be fairly obvious like gravity or static electricity once it is discovered.  Most of what I am seeing are just highly tuned motors with minimal loss.  If true over unity is discovered or the effect is created, then what ever the engine design was would need to accelerate on a geometric curve, even if starts slow, it would need to accelerate, not just maintain.

I am interested in the concepts of converting RF and Magnetic waves/fields into AC current, I think Tesla's idea that there was an infinite amount of energy stored in the earth may be in practical applications true. 

Feel free to knock me down and set me straight,  all ideas need refinement.

[z.monkey]

Howdy Ferball,

I am professional but not academic.  I agree with your basic premise.  We need to whittle the idea of free energy down to fundamentals.  We'll put all these ideas in a crucible and smelt them down, burning off the erroneous ideas until we have a refined alloy of truth left over.  I believe that there are a lot of people attempting to do this already, myself included.  There are a number of subtle, omnipresent sources of energy available, but how do we catch them?  Like radio energy from the sun, or cosmic rays from black holes, how does we harness these intangible sources of energy?  Also how do we demonstrate their presence?

I believe that there are ways to do these things that are simple, like this radiometer.  It demonstrates that electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum is possible.  When you expose the radiometer to sunlight it spins, in a vacuum.  No its not overunity, but it is free (to you) energy...

[the_sealab_2021]

the Fleming principle of conductive atoms operate transportation of atomic particles with perpetual magnetic flux Fields traveling distances between atoms releasing cell particles with momentum of an conductive rotor shape.
would a sphere make a unipolar current generator?
In mathematics and physics, the right-hand rule is a common mnemonic for understanding notation conventions for vectors in 3 dimensions. It was invented for use in electromagnetism by British physicist John Ambrose Fleming in the late 19th century.

the 90 degree vectors for energy transmission still have infinite directions to travel. too bad the British still murder scientist for using scientific designs of theirs.

but religious crusaders don't know the perpetual flux Field ellipse I discovered with proper perception attention

[gyulasun]

the Fleming principle of conductive atoms operate transportation of atomic particles with perpetual magnetic flux Fields traveling distances between atoms releasing cell particles with momentum of an conductive rotor shape.
would a sphere make a unipolar current generator?
In mathematics and physics, the right-hand rule is a common mnemonic for understanding notation conventions for vectors in 3 dimensions. It was invented for use in electromagnetism by British physicist John Ambrose Fleming in the late 19th century.

the 90 degree vectors for energy transmission still have infinite directions to travel. too bad the British still murder scientist for using scientific designs of theirs.

but religious crusaders don't know the perpetual flux Field ellipse I discovered with proper perception attention

Could you elaborate  on your last sentence and give some more details if you feel like to?

[gravityblock]

I believe that there are ways to do these things that are simple, like this radiometer.  It demonstrates that electrostatic propulsion in a vacuum is possible.  When you expose the radiometer to sunlight it spins, in a vacuum.  No its not overunity, but it is free (to you) energy...

You have re-discovered the repulsive force of the sun, which gives the planets their axial rotation and orbital revolution.  The weight of light is equal to 410 of atmospheric pressure per square mile.  As long ago as 1873 Maxwell showed that radiation exerts a pressure.  Lebedev and Nichols discovered the same thing.  If the Sun exerted attraction its light would not have weight, but a contrary effect.

Airmen who make parachute descents from a great height get into violent spins and are only able to control this movement when they reach the denser layers of the atmosphere.  There is however, quite a simple solution to this problem. If a body rises to a certain height above the Earth, thus reducing the atmospheric pressure on it, the body at once begins to rotate? This is due to one side of the body receiving more light and heat than the other. The remedy lies in balancing out the difference and supplying light and heat to the colder side.

Earth also, having one hemisphere in sunlight and the other in darkness, is subject to a difference of potential or, more specifically, a binary potential difference, and turns about its axis.  From this you can see that the phenomena of Nature are simple, all resolving themselves into readily understandable laws which need very little analysis or understanding.

Herschel and Newton mathematically proved the existence of our magnetic field, within which the Sun and the planets move, when they discovered that the point of equilibrium of the solar system  lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter, due to the proportion of 1 to 700 in the relative mass of the planets to that of the Sun. It is round this point of equilibrium that the Sun moves.

It is wrong to say that matter attracts matter in the direct ratio of mass and in the inverse of the square of distance. Matter having undergone atomic interaction has no influence on other matter at a distance. However, magnetic fields attract or repel one another, and matter can be attracted by a magnetic field. A force of attraction is exerted on the Earth by this magnetic point of equilibrium of our system, which we may call "point zero." While being attracted by this point, earth is being repelled by the light from the Sun. It's orbit round the Sun represents the balance between these two actions of attraction and repulsion.

Now, a body in space can only be in a state of equilibrium if two contrary forces meet to support it. If there were only a force of attraction without a corresponding one of repulsion, the planet would move towards the point of attraction. If the repulsion were caused solely by centrifugal force, the planet would slowly spiral in, towards the source of attraction.  Without the repulsive force of the Sun, there would however, be no circular movement. There would be neither axial rotation nor orbital revolution. A body impelled in one direction only does not move in another direction. How could Earth move in orbit in a different direction to this repulsive force? Surely a thrust from one direction cannot give rise to another at right angles to itself?

Having explained this, we can understand why planets of large volume are situated at a considerable distance from the Sun. By taking note of their distance from the Sun and their volume, we can discover their true density, and this will also give us the magnetic force of its poles. Thus the planet Jupiter is of low density and, having a large diameter, it is more subject to the force of repulsion than that of attraction. If it were true that matter attracted matter in direct proportion to the mass of the bodies, Jupiter, with a volume 1,330 times greater than Earth and 331 times as much mass, should be much closer to the Sun than Earth is.

If the magnetic centre lies between a planet and the Sun, the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in. However, if the Sun is between the planet and the centre, the force of repulsion predominates and the planet moves out, its path disturbed. As the position of the Sun changes in relation to the "point zero" centre, each successive aphelion and perihelion of a planet occurs in a different position. The two opposing forces of attraction and repulsion are able to act upon the Earth.

GB