If you are here you most likely believe over unity is out there. But how many forms of over unity are their? Is it limited to only one medium or method? I don't believe so.
During my obsessive research into science, history, and over unity I found that most of today's best innovations fundamentally mimic nature or were inspired by nature. I also found that some fundamental laws over lapped between different mediums and methods.We can all agree on that right?
Some examples of innovations mimicking nature would be flying=birds, nuclear fusion=natural nuclear decay, electricity=comb through wool/hair, exc..
An example of overlapping fundamental laws is electricity and fluid dynamics. I am convinced that ohm's law applies to the flow of most anything, following a similar set of fundamental laws. With different mediums having different pros and cons that are specific to each.
So....................Please put a 1 in front of your short answers for one and 2 in front of two, then elaborate separately for ease of counting.
!... Are there any fundamental overlapping laws of over unity we can all agree on?
2...Do you all agree with the concept about mimicking nature?
My example is
1..The sonic boom.. It seems to create excess energy. It's concept can be applied to sound, water cavitation and the water hammer effect, and maybe to the Townsend avalanche (used in Geiger tubes) by high energy collision of ion particles with atoms.
2..Mimicking nature.. Cavitation heating and the water hammer effect (both proven to exist) have have both been presented in (less than proven) over unity devices. And my research into the Townsend Avalanche makes me believe this is similar to lightning discharges and nuclear chain reactions.
I have spent countless hours to find out I was just on a wild goose chase. Especially with the weirdos out there now purposely trying to deceive people on this subject,
So maybe we can come up with some fundamental laws to keep each other from wasting our time down a dead end path.
only 2 fundamental laws here.1) the first law thermo and 2) the second law thermo.anyone trying to go round the 1st law is truly wasting time.the 2nd law,however,is open to debate.
for every action there is equal opposite reaction ;)
Double action bullet is the fundamental law of Over unity. ;D ;) 8)
@forest.. for evry action there is friction..gota get round that one.
Define Overunity first in a complete ,exact deffinition.Leave nothing out ,give all the requirements needed to fullfill Overunity. For the general population who wish to no longer pay tribute to the oil companies or ellectric companies the objective is the only goal. The pure'sts will argue endlessly against every attempt to claim Overunity. You cant have something just from nothing. If you sit a jelly bean on your desk expecting it to multiply spontanously with no interaction of any kind on any level you will waste your life waiting watching the jelly bean. Even if you found a clever way to reach the goal of being independent of the aformentioned industries.Someone will argue that all the previous generations which lead up to you consumed a certain amount of energy thereby requiring that total energy be measured against the output of you clever design. The name of this site spurrs debate, might as well called it eternity or God or eternal peace.com. You wont be getting any of those either,but the concept is interesting so here we are. Even if you could get off the corperate tit and share it with the world you wont be out of the woods.They will just tax you to death in another way. The real culprit is people who ellect the governments who regulate and control the pollicies driven by the corperations who contribute to compaigns which in turn exist to feed money in the form of taxes to the govenments who take your income money also to keep some form of society in play which was never intended to control this many people or maybe it wasnt very well thought out. If everyone is free then no one is, they will just find something ells to bitch about. Slavery for some was ended so that everyone could be enslaved equally. Freedom will come when your work is done and if your alive to read this you'll know your not done working. I have no idea what your working for so dont ask me. Im going fishing it's a nice day out.
TK's 3 Laws of OU:
1. All electrical OU devices must use at least one battery.
This has been shown empirically many times, and while it may not exactly be a fundamental "law" of OU, it has never been proven false, in thousands and thousands of experiments, just like the 2LoT.
2. The amount of OU that you get from an electrical OU device is directly related to the number of colored clipleads in the device, and inversely related to the cost of the test equipment used.
Again, this is an empirically-derived "law" so it might not be fundamental, but thousands of examples exist to support it.
3. A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable, and "PER" never indicates a division operation.
This is also sometimes known as Ainslie's Law, and proper application of it is sure to produce OU in just about any electrical device you can imagine.
@tk wrong on number 1,karpen,s battery does not use a battery.
Quote from: profitis on May 26, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
@tk wrong on number 1,karpen,s battery does not use a battery.
Karpen's battery is a battery, isn't it? Take away the battery and what do you have left? Nothing. Certainly no "free energy" or overunity device.
No self-runner = No Overunity
TK
as usual you covered the science very well with your laws
There are other faces to claimed over unity that may not fall into laws:
1. Mythology........this relates to the distortion of true historical facts about past peoples achievements and claims. We have two categories.
a. Those who made claims in the past but no one since has been able to reproduce it (aided by rumors of the nature of their demise)
b. People who did not make claims but people today take selective quotes or information and build a new story.
2. Charisma
Charismatic Characters who are able to convince people of their claims, or others to part with their money often mixing up politics, religion. They normally have some junk science or have in the past able to demonstrate something that has even themselves fooled. Often these end badly as they have no exit once they have cornered themselves and revert to shifting the goal posts.
3. Snake Oil for all
The straight out scam. No room for real science here.
4. Amnesia
The fan club keep forgetting or forgiving all the failed claims, lies and misrepresentations the person has made in the past or continues to make. No need to name names here lol.
5. The Cult
Believe or be banished.
To me, I have only two requests, not laws but rules
a. Show me the data
b. Show me the method you got the data (and instruments used)
Kind Regards
Quote from: profitis on May 26, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
@tk wrong on number 1,karpen,s battery does not use a battery.
If there is a chance it is not a battery (galvanic reaction) then the other most debated possibility it is drawing thermal energy form the environment. I have seen in private lab results the latter possibility using similar materials. The reason it is not pursued is the huge cost of materials to power out. PS you can buy solar at 60c a watt now vs possibly hundreds of dollars per watt for a matured development of this technology. It is not only rules of science that dominate....economics is a key factor.
Kind Regards
@tk lol
@markdansie..it is ambient heat yes,pumped up a gradient at no expense,forever.the romanian military(and other militaries?) apparently found a use for it despite its expensive makeup.sometimes reliability is more valuable than cost.
I think cavitation may be overunity but would be difficult to prove or use because it is centered around heat. It would be interesting to see a patent/invention that used cavitation as a motor force. Perhaps the Clem engine did this or Schauberger or the original Keely Motor.
I tried to see the original Keely Motor at the Franklin Institute last year but was informed it was taken off public display.
There was a cavitation device that made instant steam by an old German inventor (Schaefer?) but it was not a motor.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 26, 2013, 02:02:16 PM
TK's 3 Laws of OU:
1. All electrical OU devices must use at least one battery.
This has been shown empirically many times, and while it may not exactly be a fundamental "law" of OU, it has never been proven false, in thousands and thousands of experiments, just like the 2LoT.
2. The amount of OU that you get from an electrical OU device is directly related to the number of colored clipleads in the device, and inversely related to the cost of the test equipment used.
Again, this is an empirically-derived "law" so it might not be fundamental, but thousands of examples exist to support it.
3. A Joule is a Watt, the terms are interchangeable, and "PER" never indicates a division operation.
This is also sometimes known as Ainslie's Law, and proper application of it is sure to produce OU in just about any electrical device you can imagine.
4. Don't forget the inverse law of credibility, whereby the less qualified and less understanding the claimant of OU is/has, the more credible his/her OU claim will be.
5. Also, don't forget to apply the power factor of 10 to the claimants credibility , IF THEY WRITE ALL THEIR POSTS IN BIG CAPS.
Cheers
so i ever hear if some machine isnt use any battery is that true
Quote from: Eighthman on June 15, 2013, 08:19:48 PM
I think cavitation may be overunity but would be difficult to prove or use because it is centered around heat. It would be interesting to see a patent/invention that used cavitation as a motor force. Perhaps the Clem engine did this or Schauberger or the original Keely Motor.
I tried to see the original Keely Motor at the Franklin Institute last year but was informed it was taken off public display.
There was a cavitation device that made instant steam by an old German inventor (Schaefer?) but it was not a motor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjGSXKSLpfY
http://opensourceenergy.net/index.php?topic=10.0
http://www.rexresearch.com/griggs/griggs.htm
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cavitation_Heaters
http://www.overunity.com/356/hydrosonic-pump
There need not be any law's for an overunity device,because it never has and never will exist.
An overunity device is said to produce more energy than it consume's,and this can never happen-we all know this.
Energy can be niether created nor destroyed,but only transformed from one form to another. So to have an OU device,we would have to throw this law out the window.There are some law's that we believe could be changed,but i think this law will stand. To claim to have an OU device simply means that we dont yet know where the extra energy is comeing from,and it has to come from some where, as it cannot be created. I guess this is where the term ! exotic energy device! would come into play,or a free energy device. Even a self runner would be possable,but it would still require an input power source equal or greater than the output.
I think maybe the first law of OU would be to to remove OU altogether,as it just cant be done.
Rename overunity to something that can actualy be achieved. Saying you have an overunity device is like saying your recharging or desulphating a battery with the backEMF. Although most might understand what you mean,it is still an incorrect term-when you actualy mean the flyback or kickback from an inductor.
So unless some one works out how to create energy, then overunity is just an incorrect term.
Quote from: tinman on June 16, 2013, 08:51:39 AM
There need not be any law's for an overunity device,because it never has and never will exist.
An overunity device is said to produce more energy than it consume's,and this can never happen-we all know this.
Energy can be niether created nor destroyed,but only transformed from one form to another. So to have an OU device,we would have to throw this law out the window.There are some law's that we believe could be changed,but i think this law will stand. To claim to have an OU device simply means that we dont yet know where the extra energy is comeing from,and it has to come from some where, as it cannot be created. I guess this is where the term ! exotic energy device! would come into play,or a free energy device. Even a self runner would be possable,but it would still require an input power source equal or greater than the output.
I think maybe the first law of OU would be to to remove OU altogether,as it just cant be done.
Rename overunity to something that can actualy be achieved. Saying you have an overunity device is like saying your recharging or desulphating a battery with the backEMF. Although most might understand what you mean,it is still an incorrect term-when you actualy mean the flyback or kickback from an inductor.
So unless some one works out how to create energy, then overunity is just an incorrect term.
It is not necessary to "create energy". It is more likely that energy that already exists, but is not used or perceived, known, or understood to be available, could be made to be more available by increasing efficiency.
@tinman.i have never heard bigger crap in my life.why did you forget about the 2nd law of thermodynamics huh?
There used to be a law of conservation of energy. Einstein invalidated it a long time ago. Einstein stated that mass and energy are equivalent. The new law is that there is conservation of mass/energy. And there always was the conservation of momentum laws that need to be abided to. This is why I am trying to determine the momentum of a bound electron compared to the momentum of an unbound electron. If a bound electron is moving at 1/10 the speed of light with a rest mass of say 1. Then the mass velocity would be .1c Now this same electron somehow is daccelerated to zero c. It's mass/velocity would be 1. This is a pretty significant amount of difference.
hey sparks. chek out the present work of nobel winner frank wilczek who is trying to show a particular kind of perpetuum mobilum at the ground state of a crystal using a few singular calcium ions from a perspective of time assymetry.
QuoteSo maybe we can come up with some fundamental laws to keep each other from wasting our time down a dead end path.
Yes, one guy actually came up...long time ago, but it doesn't help if nobody read and think about it ;-)
"A Departure from known methods – possibility of a "self-acting" engine..."
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm
Conservation law says that 'energy can neithr be created nor be destroyed'. Which itself means that energy is perpetual.
For example convert 10 Watts electrical energy completely into photon energy (light energy) using a bulb. This light energy travels from earth to outer space and after travelling very long distance, it will be tired and gets converted into cosmic dust. This comic dust in space attract one another and get converted into a star. After sometimes star catches fire and emits photons.
So, the light emitted by bulb again comes back to earth from star. Energy is not destroyed hence it is perpetual!!
Quote from: Newton II on February 11, 2014, 09:48:34 AM
Energy is not destroyed hence it is perpetual!!
This forum is meant to discuss about perpetual machine and not perpetual energy. How do you build a perpetual machine using 'perpetual energy'?
before defining laws, observations must be made and made repeatable, lets start with a single observation of free energy :P