I feel out of place posting here dew to this being the first post here other than the Prize Money Post. i would just like to have a few things Cleared up, and i feel this is the proper place for this post.
I will start by asking,
1.Have you Seen a device that puts out more POWER than it Consumes?
2.How many Confirmed that this device works? Can you povide Solid Proof of this device and a way of replicating it?
3.Do you know OF anyone that has a Device that is Generating More power than it is consuming?
Please answer each Question as given, Thank you.
Power? I think you mean energy, don't you? It's easy to demonstrate a device that puts out more power than it consumes. Just trickle-charge a battery for a long time using a low-power charger and then discharge the same battery quickly into a high-power load. See? More power out than in!
This works because power does not include a factor of time. I think what you are asking has to do with energy, rather than power. Energy is power multiplied by time. In order to be overunity, a device must supply more energy output than it consumes energy input. Now that's a much tougher trick! One Watt of power available for an hour is the same amount of energy as 3600 Watts of power available for one second. One watt-hour equals 3600 joules (watt-seconds).
I guess that's why people call it "free energy" rather than "free power". I know that it sounds like I'm being overly technical and making a silly comment here, but you'd be amazed at the number of inventors who fail to understand this and think they have discovered "free energy" simply because they were able to produce more power (for a brief time) out of their machine than they put in (for a longer time). Instantaneous peak pulsed power output is often compared to continuous power input by inventors with simple energy-storage-based machines containing flywheels, capacitors, etc.
To answer your questions precisely, using the term "power" as given, my answers would be:
Yes, many, yes, yes
If the term "energy" were substituted into your questions, then my answers become:
No, none, no, no
Linda
(Was this a trick question? Did I get the trick answer right?)
G'day Linda and all,
As usual you have hit the nail right on the head darling. This is the very thing that has fooled so many with the Milkovic device. Everybody looks at how little power goes in and how much goes out totally ignoring that the peak power output is only for a very short time.
That is why no-one, including Milkovic, has been able to create a self runner in spite of the fact that one side shows ten times the power than the other. Multiply both sides by time as appropriate for each side and all you get is equilibrium minus friction and drag.
Pity many researchers do not bother to learn elementary physics because they erroneously believe that ALL of physics is wrong and has to be re-written.
No doubt contemporary physics is full of holes and unknowns and further discoveries will be made, some of them revolutionary. I seriously doubt though that this will be in the area of elementary mechanics or basic stable data.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: armagdn03 on October 23, 2007, 08:33:27 PM
deleted,
Oh...you are too fast for me...I guess you figured out how stupid your post was all by yourself! I was going to ask you to tell us the difference between electrical power and electrical energy then...but I see you have rescinded your foolish arguments. Very good!
Linda
If your goal in life is to show how stupid people are you should go to the skeptic forum.
Here in the news area you look stupid!!
Hello Gaby,
If you are talking to me, please know that my purpose in life is to learn, create, enjoy and teach. There does seem to be quite a bit of confusion about the difference between power and energy here and in the general public. Many use these terms as if they were interchangeable and meant the same thing. To me, they are as different as Area and Volume; one describing a two-dimensional planar quantity and the other describing a three-dimensional spatial quantity.
If someone described an amount of material by giving its area without the thickness, it wouldn't be very useful in knowing how much was really there, now would it? Same goes for power without time. I was simply trying to clarify this matter of utmost importance when dealing with input/output measurements. Armageddon had initially argued that power included a time factor by nature and therefore my statements about it were wrong. Before I could correct him, he corrected himself by removing the post.
Now as far as someone providing no clarity or information and making a statement that seems only to try to make someone appear stupid...take a look at your own post. What scientific knowledge are you trying to clarify, teach or argue? I don't see anything there except you putting out the very same attitude you falsely claim I have and you are criticizing, sir!
Let's be fair. I made a true statement; Armageddon argued incorrectly that it was wrong, thought better of it and deleted it. I congratulated him for figuring it out on his own. He must have realized his error...that is smart; not stupid! Then you chime in...now look at your own post! Are you not doing exactly what you tell me not to do? And, unlike my post, with exactly nothing contributed?
Linda
so you're telling me that the device i have that takes in 5.38 volts dc at .51 amps dc 2.7438 watts "power" and i am getting out 4.71 volts DC .91 amps dc out is not overunity?
so i am putting in 2.7438 "watts power"
and getting out 4.2861 "watts power"
that is 1.5423 watts power gained from where?
this is not overunity???
Thank you Linda
Hydrocars
Quote from: Spewing on October 28, 2007, 01:00:52 AM
so you're telling me that the device i have that takes in 5.38 volts dc at .51 amps dc 2.7438 watts "power" and i am getting out 4.71 volts DC .91 amps dc out is not overunity?
so i am putting in 2.7438 "watts power"
and getting out 4.2861 "watts power"
that is 1.5423 watts power gained from where?
this is not overunity???
Thank you Linda
Hydrocars
If the numbers you are quoting are accurate and continuous over time, then you would have overunity. Those are two huge "ifs".
Linda
no if's in my design... i'm glad to hear i have overunity ;D
thank you linda
Hydrocars
There is no such thing , the laws of nature can not be broken . There is such thing a free energy which means you don?t pay any money for it , but over unity is impossible . If you create energy out of magnets of any other form you are using more energy that you are creating , thus the laws of physics always apply.
The universe is ever expanding, and the universe is full of energy. So is that not overunity? Just my 2 cents
Hahhahhahaaahahaaaahhaaa....
I am positively stupefied over the confusion of basic physics laws here. Linda and Hans are right, and that is probably because they have a background in science and physics, and have tested the theories and laws countless times. People assume that free energy and over unity are some sort of magic. "Well, I'll just wind up this magic coil and it will unlock all the secrets of the whole universe." That is a dump truck full, completely full, of bullshit. Yeah, I'm from Texas.
Free energy and overunity have to conform to all the same laws that all the other normal energy devices conform to. The difference being that there are sources of energy that are not completely understood by our limited intellect. What if I said we could poke a hole in the ground and a gas would come up from the depths of the Earth. We could use this gas to cook food, and warm our houses, and generate electricity. Does this seem irrational? Does this seem feasible? Is this free energy? No this is not "free" energy, it is natural gas, and it's pretty close to free. But we have to pay someone to poke a hole in the ground. We have to pay someone to lay pipes to our houses. We have to pay someone to build a gas turbine electrical generator. We have to pay someone to run electrical wires to our houses. So, even though the resource may be close to free, we still have to pay for the service to get the energy to our lazy asses.
OK, suppose someone finally figures out how to tap zero point energy. "Free" energy from the electromagnetic null zone. Do you suppose that this brilliant scientist who built this exotic technology to extract energy from the vacuum of space will give you his invention for free? Suppose this scientist invested twenty years of his life working on this technology, the whole while living on a shoestring budget. So how much money do you think that he would want to sell his zero point machine for? I would suppose that this zero point machine will be rather expensive. He would be reluctant even to sell such a machine to the lazy couch potato populous we have in the modern world.
Free energy is cheap, the devices that produce free energy are NOT!
As for you that don't understand this, you need to go back to school and major in the HARD sciences. Without the fundamental understanding that science, math, and physics provide it is going to very difficult to invent anything that will be useful to mankind.
I like to look at this whole mess of free energy and over unity in terms of efficiency. A system with no resistive or frictional losses is 100% efficient (a very rare occurrence). Free energy and over unity imply that a system can be more than 100% efficient. You can be sure if a system is more that 100% efficient that it is gaining energy from an unknown source. What we are all looking for is that unknown source of energy that causes a system to be inexplicably more than 100% efficient, if, indeed, that can happen. Then once we identify the unknown source of energy then we will adjust our perceptions of the universe and realize that the system is operating at less that 100% efficiency in light of our new discovery.
Hope you don't mind my ranting...
Fundamentals, people, fundamentals!
Blessed Be Brothers...
Quote from: Spewing on October 28, 2007, 01:00:52 AM
so you're telling me that the device i have that takes in 5.38 volts dc at .51 amps dc 2.7438 watts "power" and i am getting out 4.71 volts DC .91 amps dc out is not overunity?
so i am putting in 2.7438 "watts power"
and getting out 4.2861 "watts power"
You're still talking about energy and not about "power", but never mind that ;)
What I want to know is: can you please post this device,
of which you claim that it outputs more energy than is put in?
I, and I think some others as well, would like to see and measure
that input/output ratio for myself...
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Koen
Quote from: Koen1 on March 20, 2008, 11:41:39 AM
Quote from: Spewing on October 28, 2007, 01:00:52 AM
so you're telling me that the device i have that takes in 5.38 volts dc at .51 amps dc 2.7438 watts "power" and i am getting out 4.71 volts DC .91 amps dc out is not overunity?
so i am putting in 2.7438 "watts power"
and getting out 4.2861 "watts power"
You're still talking about energy and not about "power", but never mind that ;)
What I want to know is: can you please post this device,
of which you claim that it outputs more energy than is put in?
I, and I think some others as well, would like to see and measure
that input/output ratio for myself...
Thanks!
Kind regards,
Koen
Yes: Koen1 is right
Thats,what we all looking for.
@Spewing
Please be so kind and post your Setup.
Than we will have a new Objekt to be rebuild.
During the Time many inventors came and claim their OU Devises.
We have seen many Patents,that state somehow power multiplikation.
So here ist the right place to start and " save the World."
Our Politicians just talking all Day to do efficiant steps forward while they
consume more and more the money,that we are working for.
We search and wait for a device,that collect us some energy out of the unknown
aether.
If it is just :1.5423 watts power thats fine.
helmut
A solar cell puts out more power than it consumes.
You need to rigorously define the question before you will find an answer. ;)
I'm sorry Feynman, that is not correct. There is no such thing as a free puppy.
The solar cell receives energy in the form of photons from the sun. The silicon in the solar cell causes the photons to coalesce into electrons. There are about 5 photons in an electron, to the ratio of photons to electrons is about 5 to 1. This means that the solar cells efficiency is perceived to be about 20 percent. The same amount of energy comes out that goes in, albeit, in a different form. The solar cell output is proportional to its input. Hook up the voltmeter across a load connected to a solar cell. Use a strong flash light to vary the amount of light the solar cell receives and watch the voltmeter.
Although the solar cell is a highly efficient device, despite mans disability to perceive quantum level interactions, it is not "free" energy. The electricity provided by a solar cell is donated by the sun. Well, that was awful nice of the sun to give us that energy, lets sent him a fruit basket....
Blessed Be Brothers...
I think I made my post worded badly, my apologies. I was trying to allude to the distinction between COP and efficiency. And yes, sometimes there are free puppies! You just have to feed them.
You generally lose energy when you transform from one kind of energy to another. (mechanical to electrical, etc). The losses come from friction, impedance, and so on. You are correct that solar cell requires environment input (from the sun), and yes it is indeed 'losing' photons. It's efficiency is 20% according to your data. Efficiency is never over 100%. However, the coefficient of performance (COP) can be over 100% and even infinite. The COP of a solar cell is much greater than 1 because the energy from the sky costs nothing. COP is just the "bang for the buck," as Bearden says. You don't have to 'pay' for the solar cells energy (once you have the cell anyway!). You put nothing in, but you get voltage out because the system is not closed. To you, it's free. The dynamics of any open system (which is the earth, point charge, magnet, quantum field, etc) the COP can be greater than one up to infinite.
That was the point I was trying to make (difference between COP and efficiency), sorry that I wasn't making a clear description. You are right about efficiency and you make an excellent point.
PS
Free energy is built into nature and is based around 'payment' to her in return for output.
In other words, you can pay 10 units of energy in and get 100 units out. (lets ignore impedence or friction losses for a moment). The other 90 units are provided by the environment in any open system, be it the sun, the active quantum vacuum, the earth's magnetic field, local spacetime curvature, negative energy, etc etc.
PPS
In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. [1] Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
Fundamentals, Feynman, fundamentals!
Coefficient of performance is efficiency in a thermodynamic system.
A solar cell deals with photons and electrons and regular electrical efficiency applies.
What is termed "free" energy is energy coming from a source that hasn't been identified and/or is beyond our perceptional ability to measure.
This doesn't mean that efficiency flies out the window.
It seems in your mind you are relating units of energy to dollars. I am talking physics. To me you seem to be confused. I can remember, years ago, when I was confused, and all this free energy stuff was fantastic and mysterious. I wrote many theories of how this "free" energy could be used. I look back on that stuff now and realize how wrong I was. We all receive an abundance of energy from our sun and this doesn't cost anything. But that doesn't mean the laws of physics are going to fly out the window. When you are making a device to extract energy from nature you have to follow natures rules. That's just the way it is. We are not rewriting the laws of physics. We are not even bending the laws of physics. The bottom line with what this group is doing is finding new sources of energy which were previously unknown and/or imperceptible. The idea that the coefficient of performance can be infinite is totally ridiculous. Sorry...
Blessed Be...
Quote from: Feynman on March 20, 2008, 01:00:53 PM
I think I made my post worded badly, my apologies. I was trying to allude to the distinction between COP and efficiency. And yes, sometimes there are free puppies! You just have to feed them.
And your puppy food comes free of charge as well? ;)
QuoteYou generally lose energy when you transform from one kind of energy to another. (mechanical to electrical, etc). The losses come from friction, impedance, and so on. You are correct that solar cell requires environment input (from the sun), and yes it is indeed 'losing' photons. It's efficiency is 20% according to your data.
Yes well about that data, expressions like "there are 5 photons in an electron" are close but no cigar... It's not about number of photons per electron,
it's about energy contained in ONE photon and the ionisation potential (for ONE electron) of the irradiated material, and the ratio between those plus the resistance of the material determines the output of a solar cell. So it also depends very much on the material used, in solar cells generally abundant semiconductors, but the photovoltaic effect also occus when photons strike a simple metal plate... Solar cell efficiency up to 40% has been reached, so 40% of the energy that hits it in the form of light
gets transformed into electrical output, but the more efficient the cell the more expensive to make, and the most efficient cells are also the most fragile.
Fragility is something that does not combine very well with the weather, as any weather induced damage like corrosion or hail impact can have seriously negative
effects on the output. That's why the cheap plastic-based low efficiency solar cell films that are now being developed are so interesting: they are cheap,
they don't have to be made in special clan rooms by people in 'spacesuits', and they can be attached to more and different surface types more easily. Overall,
cost-efficiency wise, they are a nice improvement on the applicability of solar cells.
QuoteEfficiency is never over 100%. However, the coefficient of performance (COP) can be over 100% and even infinite. The COP of a solar cell is much greater than 1 because the energy from the sky costs nothing. COP is just the "bang for the buck," as Bearden says. You don't have to 'pay' for the solar cells energy (once you have the cell anyway!). You put nothing in, but you get voltage out because the system is not closed. To you, it's free. The dynamics of any open system (which is the earth, point charge, magnet, quantum field, etc) the COP can be greater than one up to infinite.
Yes, well, although the "fuel supply" is free and unlimited, the "engine"
itself is not, and actually quite expensive to make. ("fuel"=light, "engine"=cell, obviously)
So it comes down to how much energy does it take to gather and refine the materials, and to machine them into a solar cell, and how long does a cell like that work
at significant output before weather and environmental influences have damaged it so much it needs to be replaced, and how much energy does that cost...
That is the "cost" of a solar cell in energy. If one solar cell during its effective lifespan produces significantly more (because just barely more won't cut it) than
this energy cost, then it is a cost-efficient long term energy solution.
QuotePS
Free energy is built into nature and is based around 'payment' to her in return for output.
In other words, you can pay 10 units of energy in and get 100 units out. (lets ignore impedence or friction losses for a moment). The other 90 units are provided by the environment in any open system, be it the sun, the active quantum vacuum, the earth's magnetic field, local spacetime curvature, negative energy, etc etc.
That depends on how efficiently you can collect that energy. I don't think you can simply say that 90% of all energy in any open system can be collected just like that.
Quote
PPS
In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and tends to increase the rate of expansion of the universe. [1] Assuming the existence of dark energy is the most popular way to explain recent observations that the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate. In the standard model of cosmology, dark energy currently accounts for almost three-quarters of the total mass-energy of the universe.
Erm... You're leaving out a lot of terms like "alleged", "supposed", "possible", etc.
Dark energy is nothing more than a hypothesis that could possibly account for the assumed expansion of the universe.
There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that it does really exist.
It is only one of the easiest ways to explain the assumed expansion.
(I say "assumed" because expansion is just one of 3 possible outcomes of the relativity theory, and the only reason for
it to be the generally accepted assumption is the "proof" of the cosmic redshift. With the theory that is also currently
assumed to be plausible that the speed of light in interstellar space might be slightly variable, the entire conclusion that
redshift must mean distance increase becomes shaky. The main difficulty is that we simply have no idea what exaclty
goes on half a universe away, and that certain "natural constants" may well be different there, which could easily
invalidate all our earth-based theories.)
@z.monkey
COP can be infinite because symmetry is broken.
QED: Quantum Electrodynamics
QFT: Quantum Field Theory
FLOT: First Law of Thermodynamics
LHC: Large Hadron Collider
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F3%2F3e%2FSpontaneous_symmetry_breaking.jpg&hash=2e88b7b441e5ae7b11ab9bfba21ed8b4fceafe71)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2Fc%2F9%2F3%2Fc9388c818409866e3dab0d68ad0b7487.png&hash=2a48a78b0f097d901aae91f1ea83abe8305934bf)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F3%2Fd%2F4%2F3d4e10b7f7aa5a6a7f58e0544113f134.png&hash=f8f5f4c8847b30338bc6bcb4f20573bcc01b3893)
Graph of spontaneous symmetry breaking function using Lagrangian potential L = KE - PE (https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.answers.com%2Fmain%2Fcontent%2Fwp%2Fen%2Fthumb%2F8%2F8a%2F190px-Gluon-top-higgs.svg.png&hash=e967218a446c77c14daa73f461bb8ad82d77887f)
How CERN thinks they will produce Higgs at LHC Sorry, I am not confused. I may get certain details wrong, but I strongly believe the main ideas I am expressing are correct. And the main idea is this: CONVENTIONAL THEORY IS WRONG. The rest, take it or leave it. . . and on the contrary, I believe it is you who must revisit the fundamentals of QED to make sense of thermodynamics.
Yes, some things I say are incorrect. I have huge gaps in my understanding. I make mistakes all the time.. That's fine, it's how we learn. But are we so stupid to believe we have the answers firmly in hand? Of course not. I also believe many of the 'fundamentals' you find in textbooks are wrong. Why? Because the experiment has contradicted them. When the experiment contradicts, it's time to change the theory.
You claim that somehow I cannot connect thermodynamics with quantum theory or cosmology. This idea is what is ridiculous. Of course they can be connected. Most particle physicists now concede that the so-called standard model will unify at higher energies. Why else are they building LHC at CERN besides a just another higher energy accelerator toy. (Yes I know they are looking for Higgs). The point is,
how you can you speak of energy within a system, or energy transfer between systems , without understanding it within the framework of both quantum theory and special relativity? You absolutely cannot, because your answers will only make sense within certain energy scales. Yes, you can approximate at every day energies. But at really large scales and really small scales (Planck length) your entire model will break down. So the classical thermodynamics toolbox has only one size screwdriver. The fat tail problem is
in addition to the known violations of these 'laws' which occur at normal energy scales.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.interactions.org%2Fsgtw%2F2006%2F0111%2Fimages%2Flhc_welding_700.jpg&hash=37e8ed68c431bd6332cc1c08412d19942e72de8c)
LHC: Biggest TPU ever
Let me show you what I mean. The first law of thermodynamics is 'conservation of energy.' What the hell does that even mean! We haven't even defined energy!!! Something beyond the illusions of words! Okay, "the ability to do work" ... well then what about asymmetrical re-gaugeing? That's work-free. Does that mean the process is energy-free? No, of course not, because it involves the transfer of potential energy, and we
know it happens because there are experiments which prove it. What I am saying here is that we don't even have rigorous definitions in these theories. The whole set of immutable 'laws' are built on a foundation of semiology and assumption!
Noether's Theorem:Take, for example, the hundred year old First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy), in its modern incarnation. There are all sorts of tricks and slight of hand to make it fit with Einstein's general relativity, but let's ignore that and focus instead on how classical thermodynamics might be reconciled with quantum electrodynamics.
We the must focus on Noether's Theorem, which the 'heavy lifter' of the First Law of thermodynamics, the 'club bouncer' if you will, used to keep the grad students and workshop inventors at bay, with it's thick integral calculus and dizzy mathematics. Look at this confusing mess of an equation. Dirac would absolutely hate this monster.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2Fa%2Fe%2Fb%2Faeb4cf6b6b8273d16b5ece737ad60c60.png&hash=b1540ea8040e114bc8eb1b0c47e401688112aec1)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2Ff%2F8%2Fc%2Ff8c883b8dd18e74ebe57bbc9d585a2ad.png&hash=88723ec351201cb95cb3e5eecec3ac7f18406ce7)
Now, this is part of the sacred First Law (conservation of energy) and is
the continuity equation associated with energy symmetry in space-time. So what does this mean? Well ,
Quote"if we integrate this current over a space-like slice, we get a conserved quantity called the Noether charge (provided, of course, if M is noncompact, the currents fall off sufficiently fast at infinity).
Furthermore
QuoteThis applies to any derivation Q, not just symmetry derivations and also to more general functional differentiable actions, including ones where the Lagrangian depends on higher derivatives of the fields and nonlocal actions. Let ε be any arbitrary smooth function of the space-time (or time) manifold such that the closure of its support is disjoint from the boundary. ε is a test function. Then, because of the variational principle (which does not apply to the boundary, by the way), the derivation distribution q generated by q [ ε ] [ Φ ( x ) ] = ε ( x ) Q [ Φ ( x ) ] satisfies q [ ε ] [.S.]=0 for any ε on shell, or more compactly, q(x)[.S.] for all x not on the boundary (but remember that q(x) is a shorthand for a derivation distribution, not a derivation parametrized by x in general). This is the generalization of Noether's theorem.
Wow that almost put me to sleep. Realize there are some seriously fatal assumptions in Noether's theorem. We are assuming a SMOOTH space-time. Space-time is not smooth !! It's a veritable particle circus! Wave functions that never go to zero! Virtual photons are bubbling out of nothing! Faster than light tunneling! Have we learned nothing from experiments? Quantum theory has broken symmetry at and below Planck length. As Bearden says, examine Lee and Yang's Nobel prize for broken symmetry in 1957. Do you seriously think broken symmetry (well accepted in QED) has no consequence on Noether's theorem or classical thermodynamics? Noether's theorem came in 1918, when quantum theory was still a joke and people believed quanta were mathematical accidents! Never mind the time-reversed photons or antiparticles or quarks which are now believed to be manifestations of the underlying symmetry transformation (which has yet to be solved).
QT Electron Structure:Let's look at the wave amplitude of the electron for a minute, since it relates to the structure of space-time and the active vacuum.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantummatter.com%2Farticles_html%2Fef2.gif&hash=5399c2a154fc7f874b6a07d8979033a65af4e7cb)
QuoteFigure 1. Electron Structure. The upper diagram shows a cross-section of the spherical wave structure, something like the layers of an onion. It is comprised of an inward moving wave and an outward moving wave. The two waves combine to form a single dynamic standing wave structure with its center as the nominal location of the electron. Note that the amplitude of a quantum wave is a scalar number, not an electromagnetic vector. Thus these waves are part of quantum theory, not electric theory. At the center the quantum wave amplitude (and the electric potential) is finite, not infinite, in agreement with the observed electron (Wolff, 1995). The lower diagram shows the same quantum wave amplitude plotted along a radius outwards from the electron center. The lower diagram is a 'slice' from the upper diagram.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.quantummatter.com%2Farticles_html%2Fef3.gif&hash=9860b5507559e84f9cf637e5d7df1a4057381cd5)
QuoteFigure 2. Radial Plot of the Electron Structure. When the IN and OUT quantum waves combine they form a standing wave. This detailed plot, the same as the approximate lower plot of Fig. 1 above, corresponds exactly to the equations below. The envelope of the wave amplitude matches the Coulomb potential everywhere except at the center, where it is not infinite in agreement with the observations of Lamb and Retherford. If the electron were moving and observed by another detector atom with relative velocity v, the deBroglie wavelength appears as a Doppler effect on both waves. The frequency mc2/h of the waves was first proposed by Schroedinger and deBroglie, proportional to the mass of the electron. This frequency is the mass so that mass measurements are actually frequency measurements. There is no mass 'substance' in nature
Okay besides the obvious element of frequency convertability with mass here (should rings some bells), the other big thing is the WAVE AMPLITUDE NEVER GOES TO ZERO. The electron goes out to the ends of the damn universe. That's what the math says, Schroedinger has yet to be proven wrong, so let's stop renormalizing every damned infinity that pops up and just accept the things that defy understanding. Also , these are scalar waves. Does this affect the structure of space-time? You bet it does.
http://www.quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_spin.html (http://www.quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_spin.html)
QED and Ward-Takahashi:So back to First Law, is it even possible to put Noether's theorem (and by implication classical First Law Of Thermodynamics) together with quantum electrodynamics? (Are you still going to tell me there is no connection between QED and classical thermodyamics? Well, keep reading...)
QED and Noether's theorem are connected (through generalization of Noether's equations) via the Ward-Takahashi identities, but these are just more mathematical 'smoke and mirrors' which enforce a narrow view of what is possible in our world. The equations are fine, and yes they are difficult and interesting, but they operate on incorrect ASSUMPTIONS. Here is the usual quantum version of Noether's theorem (*IF* the gauge transformation corresponds to a global symmetry):
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2Fa%2F1%2F6%2Fa162a6d29bc23ee74802e7fa819da2aa.png&hash=0e0bf8620af9f3ed03b2a458cf591f4a2a265a40)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F8%2Fd%2F7%2F8d76b412be6e693144b1b907fe462a26.png&hash=15c76eafb043bf0a1266817b6f5e885dacf537bd)
Above is the QFT analog of the asinine Noether continuity equation. The whole equation is just ASSUMING gauge symmetry, which may or may not be the case! In fact, outside of your textbook, there is no local space-time with unbroken symmetry! What a bunch of nonsense! Broken symmetry is everywhere! And this is the LAW of thermodynamics as applied to QED? Are you kidding me? This passes for education on planet Earth? Incredible...
In reality, the Ward-Takahashi identity that should be used is not the 'First Law' Noether version displayed above, because it's flat out wrong for broken symmetries ! Instead, one should use the identity which is NOT gauge invariant!! If only the particle physicists would speak to the electrical engineers once in awhile! What on earth do you think they are doing at CERN? Smoking doobers? They are there to find the Higgs boson because they think it will explain the acquisition of a non-zero vacuum expectation value. These dude's KNOW there is broken symmetry; they are just searching for the collision debris to balance the books in the standard model.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mppmu.mpg.de%2Fenglish%2Fhiggs_decay_web.jpg&hash=76040d5aec97c6f5979b1451e7745a5644c90fb4)
Computer reconstruction of particle tracks,
originating from the simulated decay of a Higgs-boson.
Chiral Anomaly:The point is the classical Noether theorem ("Conservation of Energy") equation doesn't work in quantum electrodynamics. You must break the global symmetry. Below the proper equation for QED broken gauge symmetry, and it VIOLATES the First Law of Thermodynamics. This is what I am getting at. Stop messaging me about violating damned physics laws which we already know to be nonsense!
Note that even if there is not a global symmetry (i.e. the symmetry is broken), we still have a Ward-Takahashi identity describing the rate of charge nonconservation.
If the functional measure is not gauge invariant, but happens to satisfy
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fmath%2F6%2Fe%2F1%2F6e1a8455096840d356973146cd3659a6.png&hash=4f6787eff2d28c277d096a2971fd0322464594e4)
where λ is some functional of the fields Æ, we have an anomalous Ward-Takahashi identity. This happens when we have a chiral anomaly, for example. A "chiral anomaly"! What in the hell is that?! Who dares to break the First Law of Thermodynamics?
Look at the bleeping Feynman diagram dudes!
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F8%2F85%2FTriangle_diagram.svg%2F162px-Triangle_diagram.svg.png&hash=20c6b3db0c34cfda1658838a9a627bfcc46dcfd7)
This photon is breakin' the law!!
Quote
A chiral anomaly is the anomalous nonconservation of a chiral current. In some theories of fermions with a chiral symmetry the quantization may lead to the breaking of this (global) chiral symmetry. In that case, the charge associated with the chiral symmetry is not conserved.
The non-conservation happens in a tunneling process from one vacuum to another. Such a process is called instanton. In the case of a symmetry related to the conservation of a fermionic particle number, one may understand the creation of such particles as follows. The definition of a particle is different in the two vacuum states between which the tunneling occurs; Therefore a state of no particles in one vacuum corresponds to a state with some particles in the other vacuum.
In particular, there is a Dirac sea of fermions and when such a tunneling happens, it causes the energy levels of the sea fermions to gradually shift upwards for the particles and downwards for the anti-particles, or vice versa. This means particles which once belonged to the Dirac sea become real (positive energy) particles and particle creation happens.
I notice Dirac's electron-holes and negative energy are completely absent from the Wikipedia article on chiral anomolies. If I were Dirac, I'd be pissed. In fact I'd probably smash my guitar right there on the Nobel stage. But I digress.
The point is the math behind the stupid First Law of Thermodynamics DOES NOT APPLY TO QUANTUM THEORY. It's wrong wrong wrong wrong. You must break the symmetry in the Ward-Takahashi identites (derived from the asinine First Law math) in order to account for reality at the quantum level.
Furthermore, by implication of these bastardized gauge-symmetric Noether/Ward-Takahashi equations, the supposed 'conservation' of electrical charge comes from the
invariance with respect to a change in the phase factor of the complex field of the charged particle and the associated gauge of the electric potential and vector potential. But we
know there is asymmetrical re-gaugeing in QED, 'cause it happens all the damn time,
and it's free. Not only free, but work-free and field-free. Bearden has been hammering this into our thick skulls for a reason. Asymmetrical regauging. Broken symmetry. So why the contradiction? Why are we basing these 'laws' on assumptions which have been broken by experiments (some for 50 years now, longer if you include Tesla). Perhaps someone who understands better can shine some light on this topic.
How can you possibly have conservation of charge (which assumes gauge invariance in complex field) with asymmetrical field-free gauge transformations?Electroweak has broken symmetry. Chiral anomalies have broken symmetry. And yes, the dipole has broken symmetry. The 1957 experiment proved that. Pauli lost a bet that year because he "did not believe the Lord was a weak left-hander". Many of the leading physicists at the time wanted to believe God gave us symmetry. But that is not the case. God gave us broken symmetry. Now we must adjust the theory. Particle routinely travel backwards in time. Virtual photons bubble up out of nothing. You get optical pumping in the time domain. We are only
beginning to understand magnetics. The charge of the electron is infinite (until you start doing the dippy renormalization mathematical shell-game).. So I think this whole thermodynamics worship is ridiculous.
We need to think DIFFERENT than before. It's okay to be wrong.
PS Alternate theories for breaking electroweak symmetry include
* Technicolor[10] is a class of models that attempts to mimic the dynamics of the strong force as a way of breaking electroweak symmetry.
* Abbott-Farhi models of composite W and Z vector bosons [11].
* Top quark condensate
Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 23, 2007, 07:25:10 PM
G'day Linda and all,
As usual you have hit the nail right on the head darling. This is the very thing that has fooled so many with the Milkovic device. Everybody looks at how little power goes in and how much goes out totally ignoring that the peak power output is only for a very short time.
That is why no-one, including Milkovic, has been able to create a self runner in spite of the fact that one side shows ten times the power than the other. Multiply both sides by time as appropriate for each side and all you get is equilibrium minus friction and drag.
Pity many researchers do not bother to learn elementary physics because they erroneously believe that ALL of physics is wrong and has to be re-written.
No doubt contemporary physics is full of holes and unknowns and further discoveries will be made, some of them revolutionary. I seriously doubt though that this will be in the area of elementary mechanics or basic stable data.
Hans von Lieven
Imagine Albert Einstein talking with Isaac Newton and telling him... "your gravity theory is wrong... it's just a fold in space time". LOL
@Koen
QuoteAnd your puppy food comes free of charge as well? ;)
As I understand things, you have to pay for the puppy food the first time. Then (if you do things right) the food tray gets refilled from the active environment via the mysteries of QED. I think there must be millions of ways to do this. Examples might be Bedini motor, TPU, Sweet VTA, etc. I think many of the historical free energy devices are operating using variations on this theme, regardless of whether the source is vacuum energy or earth's magnetic energy, which seem to be the two most popular theories. I think it is possible both are viable sources.
Quote"it's about energy contained in ONE photon and the ionisation potential (for ONE electron) of the irradiated material, and the ratio between those plus the resistance of the material determines the output of a solar cell."
Thank you for the clarification. As you may have noticed, I do not know much about solar cells. ;)
QuoteYes, well, although the "fuel supply" is free and unlimited, the "engine"
itself is not, and actually quite expensive to make. ("fuel"=light, "engine"=cell, obviously)
So it comes down to how much energy does it take to gather and refine the materials, and to machine them into a solar cell, and how long does a cell like that work"
This is an excellent point.. it reminds me of the whole efficiency of production. In Saudi Arabia, 1 barrel of oil in gives you something like 20 out. In Canada's viscous tar sands, 1 barrel of oil in gives you only 2 out (because you must crack the tar). In the same way, if a badly constructed Bedini motor costs 100kJ to make, but will break after 90kJ of net output you are losing energy. The economics do matter.
Quote"That depends on how efficiently you can collect that energy. I don't think you can simply say that 90% of all energy in any open system can be collected just like that."
I don't think so either. However, I think the environmental energy will be so high you only need to capture a fraction of it. The non-diverging Heaviside component is orders of magnitude greater than the converging term. So 90% losses is acceptable if you are talking E-amplication that runs into powers of 10 (via magnetic resonance, active vacuum, whatever the mechanism is, assuming the source is EM in type and originates from the non-diverging Maxwell-Heaviside component).
Quote
"Erm... You're leaving out a lot of terms like "alleged", "supposed", "possible", etc.
Dark energy is nothing more than a hypothesis that could possibly account for the assumed expansion of the universe."
This is correct... but dark energy is the latest establishment theory regarding the accelerating universe expansion observation. My personal suspicion is dark energy, cold energy, and Dirac negative energy are the same thing.
But you are right, this particular claim has no present foundation in experiment (besides indirect observation of distant stars).
I know, as I am someone who has four dogs, three of them are rescue dogs, that they are definitely not free. You have immunizations, food, grooming, and you gotta pick up lots of poop, if they don't have any problems. If they do have problems then first you have to diagnose the problems. This may require hospitalization and even surgery. Then you have to buy their medicine, perhaps even for the rest of their life. These venerable and sensitive creatures require constant attention and will suffer if you cannot care for them fully. Then, inevitably they get older and require other types of special attention. I have one dog that the orthodox veterinarian said could not be saved. We were not going to give up on him. We found this new alternative medicine veterinarian who not only saved his life but he is happier and more full of life than ever before. She saved his life with a mix of glandular therapy and Chinese herbal medicine. Oh, did I forget the license to own dogs, yeah, that is required by the state now. You have to hold a license to own domesticated animals. Yeah, definitely not free...
Dog is an anagram for God.
Dogs are far more hospitable than most humans I know.
Dogs don't give a crap about physics...
Lol E-amplification? :)
someone's been reading Bearden? ;)
What I find a bit odd about Beardens book(s), is
that he has this huge story about broken symmetry
and "Dirac sea holes", and how that happens in the
Bedini motor/chargers, but...
while Bearden at some point very clearly describes
how a high voltage pulse should "break the symmetry
of the local vacuum" and generate a successive
"negative energy" or "dirac sea hole" current in the
same conductor which can be used or stored in a
capacitor, and how this would produce real electrons
available to the circuit,
the Bedini devices always use batteries... and there
are stories of the batteries going flat, and having to be
recharged for several times the normal charge time,
and it has been said this is due to "deep cycling" of
the batteries...
Now I don't see why, if Beardens claimed breaking of
symmetry and subsequent "release" of "dirac sea holes"
is so relatively simple, and if you can simply use a capacitor
to turn this "dirac sea hole current" into electrical current,
Bedini would not have used a "simple" pulsed capacitor
array... If it is that simple, an oscillating circuit, the "bedini"
wiring and optocoupling, and a bunch of capacitors should
suffice to produce free electrical output, without need for
the entire rotor arrangement and without batteries that
may or may not go extremely dead...
Hmm.... that turned into a rant about Beardens story...
... :-\
Oh well, see what you make of it hey ;)
as for the LHC, that's because they've got everything riding on the Higgs boson,
isn't it? They're hoping to finally detect that so far still hypothetical particle,
because that could finally give us a quantumphyiscal grip on mass.
Which would hopefully enable deeper insight into the qm of mass and matter,
and get us one step closer to the holy "grand unified theory".
Or at least, that's why I thought they were building it...
Also, is the entire point of the search for a "g.u.t." not to finally be able
to bridge the gap between the quantumphysical and the macrophysical
"laws of nature"? To figure out why exactly it is, that certain things in our
macroscopic world seem to work exactly according to classical physics,
while the quantum world shows completely different and often seemingly
"unnatural" behaviour?
... you seem to imply that quantumphysical effects somehow change the
world as it is and has been described... but the quantum effects have always
been there, and the apparent discrepancy between the macro and quantum world
has also always been there... the macro world we live in has not suddenly
changed since we figured out quantum theory...
But I may just be missing your point a bit ;)
Lol then again I seem to have lost my own point as well ;D
You cannot feign knowledge,
either you know, or you look like a dumb ass.
Some famous dude said that, don't know who...
Might have been Red Foreman...
@Koen
Quote
The Bedini devices always use batteries... Now I don't see why ... you [can't] simply use a capacitor"
I wondered that myself. That's a good question, but it's probably better addressed to Bedini. Perhaps the radiant energy must be converted from EM to chemical in order to be usable using a Bedini-style circuit (the one with opto-coupler etc). In theory, you should be able to use capacitors and inductors. The Thrapp devices use capacitors. Earlier units such as Sweet's VTA and others used vacuum tubes, capacitors, inductors, and magnets.
Quote
There are stories of the batteries going flat.
Have you built one? The second to last thread I saw here was a successful replication in Germany.
Quote
The quantum effects have always been there.
That's correct but I think you are missing my point. The point was that quantum electrodynamics has broken symmetry and violates the first law of thermodynamics. Broken symmetry enables infinite COP in theory, because nature is just literally creating energy and particles from nothing. Futhermore, CERN are building LHC specifically for the purpose of 'cleaning up' electroweak broken symmetry with the Higgs Boson. They should just make particles to carry out the trash from the standard model... In any case, the macro world has not change, but it is seething with EM energy as it always has been. And Tesla was hundreds of years ahead of his time; he called it radiant energy. People who say physics "has it all figured out" are not paying attention. Most particle physicists do not think standard model will survive into orders of magnitude higher energies. Remember we do not yet have a proper theory of gravitation. This suggests the standard model is severely flawed.
Where the standard model fails :
dark matter / dark energy
cosmological constant
strong CP (parity violation)
no theory of gravity!
@z.monkey
I'm not feigning anything. Anyone with a background in quantum physics will instantly recognize my efforts are sincere.
Hello Ou'ers
My simplistic view of this topic is this.
1) Nature has its doors locked. It worked hard and long to create what is here so it does not want it to dissapear easily or by mistake.
(Kind of like when you set up Dominos to fall. If you do a long pattern you have to put in breaks so that the whole thing does not unwind.))
2) I believe the secret to unlimited clean energy will be cracked very soon. Too many people working on the problem now with a much better
understanding of magnetism, gravity and electricity.
3) Now due to the internet, ideas are shared fast all over the world and the size and scope of the information sharing has made it
very diffficult to squelch the innovative ideas, designs, and inventions.
4) The winning design will incorporate all or most of the systems or methods we can observe in our small solar system,chemical energy,
gravity,magnetism,inertia, and centrifical forces.Find a machine that contains the mentioned and we should have a winner....
Who's done it??
Abigpicture
Howdy ABigPicture,
GiantKiller did it today! He has a set of inductors that are self-resonant. I have been chasing that particular problem for a long time. Go look at the Hubbard Coil thread. My version of the Infinity Coil will be done within a week or so.
Blessed Be Brothers...
Quote from: z.monkey on July 11, 2008, 06:36:38 PM
Howdy ABigPicture,
GiantKiller did it today! He has a set of inductors that are self-resonant. I have been chasing that particular problem for a long time. Go look at the Hubbard Coil thread. My version of the Infinity Coil will be done within a week or so.
Blessed Be Brothers...
Full set of specs posted too. Any takers?
Now I have the tool for the next steps. And this is a really big tool!
--giantkiller.
Quote from: Spewing on October 17, 2007, 05:08:43 AM
1.Have you Seen a device that puts out more POWER than it Consumes?
Yes. At the UK Free-Engery Conference a couple of weeks ago, the group
built a Bedini SSG. It ouput more power than it consumed, and, rather
thoughtfully, I thought, placed the extra in a flat battery, thereby charging it.
Paul.
Howdy GiantKiller, Paul-R,
Point me to the specs...
The Infinity Transformer is teetering on the threshold...
Blessed Be...
[quote author=Spewing said:
... 1.Have you Seen a device that puts out more POWER than it Consumes?...
@all
There's a logical question I might ask:
If a Bedini charger/motor can be operated and powered by an earth battery (others on this site---Bedini systems forum for instance---have reported it's possible to do that), this earth battery having unlimited electrical potential over time; wouldn't that define OU?
Oh, yes, I looked at the Rules .PDF: Earth batteries should be okay, unless the rules are changed after I will have looked at the file,
24 Jul 2009.
--Lee
Okay so this question is perplexing me a little.
A perpetual motion machine-(free energy) only counts as free energy if the substance powering it hasn't been discovered. Technically, a waterwheel is a free energy device from an economic perspective.
So my question is this. Are we failing to see the point when we create things that move in an understandable manner?
Maybe this free energy question should be zero point energy question. As in the first person to rob space of it's inherent latent power. Rather than using some of the commonly available free energy like wind.
Even nuclear, heavy water, electric latentent energy devices and a myriad of other incredible free energy sources won't be able to win, because it will have to be a force hithertoo uncaptured.
I'm repeating myself.
Wonderous Mountain
Quote from: Wonderous on May 25, 2010, 10:39:40 AM
Okay so this question is perplexing me a little.
A perpetual motion machine-(free energy) only counts as free energy if the substance powering it hasn't been discovered.
Not so. Such machines tend to be powered by the energy in space itself, as muted
by the Nobel Physics prizewinners for 1957, Lee and Yang. See also Hal Puthoff who
opined that if the energy available in the space occupied by a coffee cup were
accessed fully, it would boil the Atlantic dry, then the other oceans - and this could
be repeated several more times. (Google these folks along with "quantum foam")