We are living in a Universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out than in. If it was possible, some serious damage would be done. Frankly, some species would have blown the Universe to pieces by now.
However, this does not mean that a free energy device is not technically possible. We are living on a tiny planet in a MASSIVE Universe with virtually unlimited amounts of energy and so, the Universe itself is probably a good place to extract energy from, or even planet Earth. What we have in this Universe is a continuing transfer of energy, through nature's natural processes. Tapping into these cyclical processes is the key.
So please, do not waste your lives trying to arrange magnets in funky positions, or tip thing up and down with gravity. Try something practical which taps into nature, because virtual free energy -- which is cheap to liberate mankind from the evils of energy companies, and tyrannical leaders in general -- is possible. When you have virtually free energy, you no longer rely on the government or "grid" for anything. You are a free man. Energy can provide a man with everything he needs.
Quote from: newsflash on January 30, 2009, 08:17:48 PM
We are living in a Universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out than in. If it was possible, some serious damage would be done. Frankly, some species would have blown the Universe to pieces by now.
However, this does not mean that a free energy device is not technically possible. We are living on a tiny planet in a MASSIVE Universe with virtually unlimited amounts of energy and so, the Universe itself is probably a good place to extract energy from, or even planet Earth. What we have in this Universe is a continuing transfer of energy, through nature's natural processes. Tapping into these cyclical processes is the key.
So please, do not waste your lives trying to arrange magnets in funky positions, or tip thing up and down with gravity. Try something practical which taps into nature, because virtual free energy -- which is cheap to liberate mankind from the evils of energy companies, and tyrannical leaders in general -- is possible. When you have virtually free energy, you no longer rely on the government or "grid" for anything. You are a free man. Energy can provide a man with everything he needs.
Well at least paragraph one is accurate.
Once again, blueroomelectronics is a paid free energy debunker...
OU Crew ignore these idiots...
Energy and Matter can be created and destroyed...
Just what the hell do you think creation and destruction are?
Quote from: newsflash on January 30, 2009, 08:17:48 PM
We are living in a Universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out than in. If it was possible, some serious damage would be done. Frankly, some species would have blown the Universe to pieces by now.
However, this does not mean that a free energy device is not technically possible. We are living on a tiny planet in a MASSIVE Universe with virtually unlimited amounts of energy and so, the Universe itself is probably a good place to extract energy from, or even planet Earth. What we have in this Universe is a continuing transfer of energy, through nature's natural processes. Tapping into these cyclical processes is the key.
So please, do not waste your lives trying to arrange magnets in funky positions, or tip thing up and down with gravity. Try something practical which taps into nature, because virtual free energy -- which is cheap to liberate mankind from the evils of energy companies, and tyrannical leaders in general -- is possible. When you have virtually free energy, you no longer rely on the government or "grid" for anything. You are a free man. Energy can provide a man with everything he needs.
Yes exactly !...Energy must come from somewhere or some time external from whatever you are trying to make Thomas Moray explains this well..give him a google.
The word Overunity is in itself Misleading. Perahps this site should be called energy transfer .com?
Yeah,
You are not getting it...
How would an entire universe be created unless matter and energy can be created and destroyed?
Study up man, how could the physical universe exist, unless it was created?
Oh, do you believe that is something only GOD can do.
Let me tell you, YOU are GOD...
YOU can create...
YOU can generate original energy...
Quote from: blueroomelectronics on January 30, 2009, 09:03:46 PM
Well at least paragraph one is accurate.
Perhaps a skeptic would ask for proof for paragraph one to be taken as fact... ::)
Quote from: z.monkey on January 30, 2009, 09:32:37 PM
Yeah,
You are not getting it...
How would an entire universe be created unless matter and energy can be created and destroyed?
It wouldn't. The Universe is and always will be. It has always existed. It was not "created".. Its energy is simply circulated and transferred.
A lot of scientists believe this. And even if you don't, there is also the BIG BANG theory (most common). You know, something that ALREADY EXISTED exploded into a Universe. Hence, there is no original creation, just transfer of matter. The Universe EXPLODED into existence, exploded from something else that already existed.
OVERUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. Free energy is possible, to the point where it's never practically going to run out, because there is such a vast amount of energy in the Universe from which to use.
But energy out of nothing? No. There will always be a source.
I believe that you are an ignoramus...
Ignorant of natural law...
Ignorant of your creation...
Ignorant of the truth of creation...
You must be an orthodox scientist...
Life and the universe are constructed in a different way than you were taught in man's schools...
Ignoramus...
Man is spirit first and ignorant manimal second...
Quote from: z.monkey on January 30, 2009, 09:32:37 PM
Yeah,
You are not getting it...
How would an entire universe be created unless matter and energy can be created and destroyed?
Study up man, how could the physical universe exist, unless it was created?
Oh, do you believe that is something only GOD can do.
Let me tell you, YOU are GOD...
YOU can create...
YOU can generate original energy...
Yes
You are ...we are ....I am .Inignoramus or other wise whatever spins our wheel
lets use our existance to argue that we cant, just like we have for centuries
cheers
I'll reiterate... ignoramus...
Mind is energy...
You can create...
You can create energy...
Your spirit defines your existence and there are no limits...
You are what you think...
If you believe that you are ignorant and helpless than you will be what you believe...
It takes a strong mind to break out of the mold of mediocrity...
I guess you are not strong enough to do that, pity...
Sadly, this little thread will receive more replies than most GOOD ideas.
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then how did we come to be?
It's as if saying that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe - it's only going to be finite so long as you can measure it laughably so, it stand to reason that some one finite piece of matter measuring all the pieces of matter is concluding that it will eventually stop measuring pieces of matter.
the number 1 will eventually catch up to the number 2 - and then, of all things weird and unusual, it will catch back up with the number, or lack thereof, 0. If this is the case, then we can just as easily assume that 1 = 0 over time.
Quote from: newsflash on January 30, 2009, 08:17:48 PM
We are living in a Universe where energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get more energy out than in. .
Here's a small quote from Wikipedia -
"The First Law, i.e. the law of conservation, has become the most secure of all basic laws of science. At present, it is unquestioned."
I think the most important part in this quote is "At present, it is unquestioned."
To think humanity has answered all the question of our existence is some what narrow minded. Yes At present, it is unquestioned tomorrow who knows? How can anyone condemn the never ending search for answers?
Pete
Quote from: jadaro2600 on January 30, 2009, 11:59:14 PM
If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, then how did we come to be?
Whoo Hoo! Thine eyes are open! Thou can see the spirit...
Creation is open source, its end is not near, there is no end...
You can see the alpha (zero) and the omega (infinity), and there are no limits...
Bravo! Jadaro2600...
One is not zero, One is infinity...
Quote from: z.monkey on January 31, 2009, 12:09:04 AM
One is not zero, One is infinity...
My eyes are open, floaters and all, ...and after studying the calculus with limits approaching infinity, I'm thoroughly confused.
There would be no infinity if it were all limited.
Quote from: vonwolf on January 31, 2009, 12:03:11 AM
Here's a small quote from Wikipedia -
"The First Law, i.e. the law of conservation, has become the most secure of all basic laws of science. At present, it is unquestioned."
Conservation is flawed within a infinite universe, you are right, we have not explored all the possibilities...
Quote from: jadaro2600 on January 31, 2009, 12:11:29 AM
There would be no infinity if it were all limited.
Good will to All, for All is one. All is Infinite...
Whoa......lotsa philosophical content.
Universe: Was it always here, or was it created?
Energy: Always from within the "known universe" (which is kinda oxymoronic), or from a "zero point"?
Method: "Natural" vs. magnet or gravity (which I thought were pretty natural)?
These things I don't know, and while they are interesting to ponder, I really don't care.
I'm not really caring that much about the first as it is not a thing that I can experience or ever really know until there is FTL (faster than light) travel that would allow travel and distance measurement of the core and/or edges (if available, since another theory is that the universe is infinite) and maybe meet those that made it the way it is out there.
The 2nd question I don't care about much because it's almost a question of semantics as it is philosophy.
Any new energy that is not fully experimented with, tested, and understood would seem to come from no where or be "magic" until it has fulfilled those criteria.
Fire only came from lightning or magma before the creation of spark or understanding of friction was accomplished.
So call it Ether, Aether, Orgone, ZPE, or a fifth form of matter (assuming plasma as the fourth) that was not previously able to be sensed or measured, it doesn't matter.
Discovery of almost all the known energy types had to go from just being, to being explained, measured and
harnessed. We're still trying to understand those we know about better too (the case for magnets and gravity).
The 3rd philosophical question I don't care that much about either in EDITone way, but do very much in another.EDIT
I don't care because we need to change the effect our energy policies are having on our environment and it doesn't matter if something needs samarium cobalt mags, or the shoulder strap from a Victoria's Secret 34B wunderbra to work, as long as it does and changes our energy dependence effects.
Where the idea and proof comes from doesn't matter much either (although credit where it is due is very nice).
All it takes for the ticket from crackpot to genius is a replicated working device (that people know about and use), so it (a solution) might come from any corner.
People playing with magnets or watching weights rise and fall are on the same natural quest man has always been on, the quest for better understanding of his environment and how to manipulate it (or its effects).
They might see something others have not (which I thought was how science progressed).
EDITI just hope that it's discovered soon.EDIT
One thing I do wonder about is when a new energy source is discovered, if it's commercialization and use will have other environmental effect that we won't see for years that will probably effect life negatively and we'll have to fight tooth and nail against (somewhat like our present situation with oil and coal) before we realize and try to correct it.
Since it's historically proven and all that we (humans) have that propensity.
But I guess that's kinda philosophical too.
;)
Quote from: z.monkey on January 30, 2009, 09:54:47 PM
I believe that you are an ignoramus...
Ignorant of natural law...
Ignorant of your creation...
Ignorant of the truth of creation...
You must be an orthodox scientist...
Life and the universe are constructed in a different way than you were taught in man's schools...
Ignoramus...
Man is spirit first and ignorant manimal second...
It's not a very good Haiku.
This is all in good time;
An over unity device will be discovered, there won't be any stopping it, and there won't be any stopping the economy that crashes worldwide behind it. There's nothing that could be done for an economy that strives to base it's entirety on energy sources - a free one would mean a less valuable economy.
Prices are already high enough as they are, but prices are relative; like most things, the amount of time one has to work in order to be able to purchase the most basic nessesities is the most important ratio. When this ratio goes up or down according to the wills and ills of the economy, then there is economic upset.
There is no doubt in my mind that if there were a free-energy over-unity device, the firt thing to perish would be everything around it, economy, people and all.
There's no model to support it. save for maybe Jesus, the only valuable resource would become land and food, and the land food could be grown on.
Hi to all
I'm just an amateur experimenter and i also don't believe in excess energy until such time when i'ved discover Nikola Tesla, H. moray, Tom bearden and John Bedini there i see an overwhelming obvious of free energy ;D
otits :)
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on January 31, 2009, 06:04:06 AM
... Tom bearden and John Bedini there i see an overwhelming obvious of free energy ;D
Yeah, right!
Especially those two crackpots are the ultimate proofs. ;)
ROTFL
Lets say it’s the years 1809. Someone find a rock that has some weird effects (nuclear).
You take the rock and manage to capture the electrons from the decay of the rock. You then put an electro magnet between your rock and ground. You then show this effect to some people. You would be at this point label a witch and burned at the stake. Looks like to me that newbie Newsflash is on a witch hunt. Hey, Newsflash, how does a magnet work? Where does gravity come from? I for one am not going to say the we are able to get energy from either one of these until I see proof of this, but I will not be so cocky to say that it is impossible.
Quote from: Tempest on January 31, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Lets say it’s the years 1809. Someone find a rock that has some weird effects (nuclear).
You take the rock and manage to capture the electrons from the decay of the rock. You then put an electro magnet between your rock and ground. You then show this effect to some people. You would be at this point label a witch and burned at the stake. Looks like to me that newbie Newsflash is on a witch hunt. Hey, Newsflash, how does a magnet work? Where does gravity come from? I for one am not going to say the we are able to get energy from either one of these until I see proof of this, but I will not be so cocky to say that it is impossible.
Cocky?? This is something man hasn't been able to do in its thousands and thousands of years of existence. It would be extremely cocky, no, just plain stupid -- to suggest you could do it, especially if you're some tool sitting around playing with magnets all day.... You think I'm on a witch hunt? Really? You don't think I WANT free energy.. I do... and REAL scientists are on their way to achieving it through very efficient solar panels.. But you guys, you're a bunch of non-scientists, for some reason playing around all day with concepts that will never work.
Quote from: newsflash on January 31, 2009, 08:57:06 AM
But you guys, you're a bunch of non-scientists, for some reason playing around all day with concepts that will never work.
Ignoramus...
I am an actual scientist, employed as a scientist, and you are an ignoramus...
This Universe is proof that overyunity exists as it continues to grow with new stars/suns and planets, the flip side is that the Universe has the ability to have 100% recycle ability of energy. The reason that few and many have looked for overunity in vacuum is because the space vacuum allows energy to propagate so freely at the atomic and below scale. As particles come together through the atomic charges gravity starts to be created.
Just because we can't see it does not mean it doesn't exist, wind is a good example. We can't see it but we can see the effects of it.
Some may think that we have not achieved overunity here but that is a matter of debate.
Its as simple as this, we perceive two things in this universe. The fact that there is order, and the fact that there is disorder. Now all our physics is based around disorder since it is easiest to observe. We have never observed an ordering effect, and thus we claim it is "impossible" to do such. This I feel this is an erroneous claim. The universe has order and logically there must exist an ordering mechanism (how ever useful this mechanism is to us I can't say - it might be an effect that takes millions of years to fully observe and thus we will never see it). Mathematics and models are only good when there is experimental evidence backing it up. Unfortunately most cosmology models of the universe are based on what we have observed - and that is very tiny in comparison to the universe itself.
I find it hard to be a skeptic when there is so much evidence that an ordering mechanism does exist. Its only a matter of time till we find it.
Quote from: nickle989 on January 31, 2009, 09:03:50 AM
This Universe is proof that overunity exists as it continues to grow with new stars/suns and planets
Scientists have not seen the entire Universe. The likelihood is that as new planets form, other ones die away. Energy is only transferred.
Quote from: Tempest on January 31, 2009, 07:57:17 AM
Hey, Newsflash, how does a magnet work? Where does gravity come from?
As I asked before. Please answer. I for one don’t know. But since you know that they are a waste of time then you must know how it all works, right?
I come here to see if there are any devices that have some merit. True, I haven’t found much in a device that I can build that will churn out energy 24/7.
If you are not interested in such things then why do you comment? Do you think that you are all of a suddenly going to wake everyone up? Or is it just an over powering feeling to tell people what to do?
Quote from: z.monkey on January 31, 2009, 09:00:07 AM
Ignoramus...
I am an actual scientist, employed as a scientist, and you are an ignoramus...
Really, what field of science?
Quote from: Tempest on January 31, 2009, 11:14:05 AM
As I asked before. Please answer. I for one don’t know. But since you know that they are a waste of time then you must know how it all works, right?
A magnet does not store power, i.e., what you would need to build some kind of free energy device.
A magnet uses force. It is connected in a way to other magnetic forces. You cannot extract energy from it. It doesn't matter how you arrange a magnet. It can only pull or repel something which already exists. Something whose mass is already defined. A magnet cannot increase the power of gravity or mass, and therefore, cannot create energy. Nothing can create energy.
I have news for you New's Flash.
If you have access to two guitars (1 Electric --- 1 Acoustic), I will prove over-unity is possible.
That is, more energy is output than put in.
Step one... Strum the E string (lowest string) on the Electric Guitar (the guitar is not hooked up to an amplifier, by the way).
Step two... Note it's volume which is directly related to the energy present.
That is the amplitude of a wave is directly related to the energy vibration of the string.
Step three... Strum the E String on the acoustic.
Step four.... Note the volume again.
Step five... Louder ?
I think so. By 100's of times in fact !
Step six... Realize that there is more energy output than without the resonating chamber of the Acoustic.
If you are going to make a statement such as you have... please try to explain resonance !
I would greatly enjoy reading your explanation.
Have a great day,
The Observer
P.S. Extra credit.... do the same experiment with a trumpet, trombone or tuba.
That is, case 1 would be the volume from only the mouthpiece,
case 2 would be the volume from the mouthpiece and the horn when they are connected.
I'm pretty sure I could blast your ears out in case 2.
What do you think?
@Charlie_V
QuoteI find it hard to be a skeptic when there is so much evidence that an ordering mechanism does exist. Its only a matter of time till we find it.
"A fish cannot comprehend the existence of water. He is too deeply immersed in it."
Sir Oliver Lodge
This ordering mechanism you seek should be obvious as you are a part of it-- Life
A tree takes randomly disspersed gasses, random chemicals in the ground and disspersed water and orders them into the structure we call a tree. Suns and stars vaporize matter and this matter radiates to the gravitational fields of planets where it is organized into form and substance. If you start looking I do not believe you will find one instance where chaos is not balanced by an opposite and equal force which organizes chaos into form. What few can concieve is the time frame in which this process occurs because it could amount to nanoseconds or it could be billions of years. If matter is ejected from suns and our universe is full of astronomical bodies and these bodies have gravitational fields which attract matter then it should be obvious that at some point in time this ejected matter must gravitate to something and in doing so it is organized into structure. Another example is light, if you can "see" the light from a star hundreds of light years away then this light must have propagated through every space inbetween you and the star, this light must also have radiated in every direction from the star for hundreds of light years. Therefore can we not say all space we know of must contain "light", we can call this light radiant matter or energy but the fact remains that it has travelled through space and gravitated to our planet producing life.
@All
On the subject of overunity, first we must understand what "unity" is before we can concieve that something could exceed it. What is unity?, If unity was considered to be all energy and structure within the confines of any given space then it would seem you have concluded that this space can have no interaction with everything else that surrounds it. Does this sound logical?--- that you could isolate a known area of space and everything it contains from everything else in the universe?. As well if unity is considered as all energy that is present and available for use in a defined space then how can you get more from something you have already defined as isolated. Maybe I am simple-minded but the error would seem to be in the fact that some people believe you can completely isolate one area of space from another, this would constitute blocking the motion of all known and unknown forms of energy, blocking all motion below the subatomic level across an imaginary boundary you have defined. I believe it is much more realistic to think that energy will always propagate from one place to another based on the conditions present irregardless of what we want or believe.
Regards
AC
Quote from: The Observer on January 31, 2009, 12:08:30 PM
If you have access to two guitars (1 Electric --- 1 Acoustic), I will prove over-unity is possible.
That is, more energy is output than put in
You are comparing two different guitars, set up differently. Just because one guitar is louder than the other does not make it overunity... lol
Quote from: allcanadianOn the subject of overunity, first we must understand what "unity" is
Overunity means you're getting more out than you put in (impossible). Unity would be getting the same amount back (also impossible, since heat is always lost. A system can never be 100% efficient). Underunity is getting less out than you put in (always happens, since no system is 100% efficient). It's very simple, and I'm surprised you're on this site with 600+ posts without even being able to clearly define overunity.
Quote from: newsflash on January 31, 2009, 11:46:02 AM
A magnet does not store power, i.e., what you would need to build some kind of free energy device.
A magnet uses force.
I still have to ask you how a magnet works. I will not be so bold as to say I do. And I know that there are magnetic forces that can make electricity when you do work to a magnet. Ex. a generator. But where do those forces come from? Can those forces be manipulated to CONVERT energy for the background radiation? And if some young bright lad or lady that can come up with one, then more power to them. You are saying that we already know all there is to know about magnets. I find that cocky. And ignorant.
By the way an electro magnet does store energy.
Quote from: Tempest on January 31, 2009, 12:27:05 PM
But where do those forces come from?
www.advancedphysics.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4927
Just to be clear, Mr. News, I would also like you consider this.
AN ELECTROMAGNET
A coil around a Low Coercitivity Ferromagnetic material. (this means the magnetic dipoles spin freely)
First measure the magnetic field from just the coil without the Ferromagnetic Material inside with X amount of current.
Second, measure the magnetic field from coil with the Ferromagnetic Material inside with same X amount of current.
Can you comprehend that the magnetic field is 1,000s of times greater if not 1 MILLION times greater?
Much less explain it?
The answer lies in ANISOTROPIC ENERGY ( a quantum energy that causes dipoles to line up when they shouldn't Newtonianly.)
And, the fact that electrons never stop spinning.
Stick that in your pipe,
smoke it,
and let me know what you think.
Yours truly,
The Observer.
P.S. Extra Credit.
Try to make a speaker by replacing the magnet with a coil and taking out the ferromagnetic material that is engulfed by the coil coming from the amplifier.
If you can produce the same sound with the same signal energy, I will give you a MILLION DOLLARS ! (if i had it of course)
@ Charlie .. some would say that magnets are a form of order as it is the order that is able to create and continue that magetism until heat is applied which would cause disorder .. or a repulsing magnet of equal or greater strength diminishes the magnetism. But I would have to agree with your statement that most of our physics and understanding comes from disorder vs. the other way around. This could be an interesting topic on the observation of order ... hmm .. any one have any thoughts on this?
@newsflash
QuoteOverunity means you're getting more out than you put in (impossible). Unity would be getting the same amount back (also impossible, since heat is always lost. A system can never be 100% efficient). Underunity is getting less out than you put in (always happens, since no system is 100% efficient). It's very simple, and I'm surprised you're on this site with 600+ posts without even being able to clearly define overunity.
QuoteOverunity means you're getting more out than you put in (impossible).
Hmmm, I can place a black piece of paper in the sunlight and the energy from this sunlight will heat the paper, I have put none of this heat into the paper---- the sunlight has, you are going to have to be much more specific in your objections.
QuoteUnity would be getting the same amount back (also impossible, since heat is always lost. A system can never be 100% efficient).
I would submit that every system is 100% efficient, this heat you say that is lost has to go "somewhere" does it not? If heat is lost from one place it must be gained in another or this would violate the conservation of energy. As you know energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only charge forms.
QuoteUnderunity is getting less out than you put in (always happens, since no system is 100% efficient).
Underunity? Again, if energy cannot be created or destroyed how can there be underunity? Underunity would imply that there could be less energy that which you started with, just because entropy or radiation of energy from a system occurs does not mean energy is lost nor destroyed----it means energy has moved from one place to another. While this is an unwanted effect it is by no means underunity because the heat still exists in another place seperate from where it started.Your conception of underunity could be considered as nothing more that the "movement" of energy.
Hmmmm....seems the post from newsflash points to the "unified electromagnetic force" to explain magnetics, electricity, and their interaction.
We all know how many hundreds of years that has been understood.and unchallenged or redefined
A short history from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Unified_field_theory
"The first successful (classical) unified field theory was developed by James Clerk Maxwell.
James Clerk Maxwell was a Scottish mathematical physicist, born in Edinburgh....
. In 1820 Hans Christian Oersted discovered that electric currents exerted forces on magnets, while in 1831, Michael Faraday, FRS was an English chemist and physicist who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism made the observation that time-varying magnetic field could induce electric currents. Until then, electricity and magnetism had been thought of as unrelated phenomena. In 1864, Maxwell published his famous paper on a dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. This was the first example of a theory that was able to encompass previous separate field theories (namely electricity and magnetism) to provide a unifying theory of electromagnetism. Later, in his theory of special relativity Albert Einstein was able to explain the unity of electricity and magnetism as a consequence of the unification of space and time into an entity we now call spacetime."
The question I have is if that <above> is the perfect definitive answer for electromagnetism, why does it keep getting redefined by these "johnny come lately" types like Einstein?
Better yet, why do they keep calling it a "theory"?
;)
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I guess I needed to mention that the strings are exactly the same as well their length and tension.
I kind of get the idea that you haven't considered resonance or how it works.
The point that you missed is that the acoustic guitar's body is a natural amplifier needing no energy from the ELECTRIC COMPANY.
It actually stores the waves entering it, and emits waves of greater amplitude commensurate with the amount of wave energy it can store.
It is truly an interesting phenomenon that is very different from 99.9% of all physics.
Please study this and get back to me.
I do Thank You for inspiring everyone to think hard though.
The Observer.
Quote from: allcanadian on January 31, 2009, 01:01:03 PM
@newsflash
Hmmm, I can place a black piece of paper in the sunlight and the energy from this sunlight will heat the paper, I have put none of this heat into the paper---- the sunlight has, you are going to have to be much more specific in your objections.
OK, OK, this and everything else you said on that post are based on a common misunderstanding.
That energy is coming from the Sun. The Sun is a source of energy. That energy is transferred onto the paper. The paper then eventually cools down, as the heat is lost into the atmosphere -- again, a transfer of energy.
The energy goes from The Sun to the Paper, back into the atmosphere. It's the same damn energy the whole time. Nothing is created..
You have a scarily fundemental lack of understanding of the absolute most basic concepts. 10-year-olds can understand this.
Quote from: The Observer
The point that you missed is that the acoustic guitar's body is a natural amplifier needing no energy from the ELECTRIC COMPANY.
It actually stores the waves entering it, and emits waves of greater amplitude commensurate with the amount of wave energy it can store.
It is truly an interesting phenomenon that is very different from 99.9% of all physics.
It doesn't store anything, FFS. Your body's movements are the original energy source. You get that energy from the food you eat. The energy from your fingers is transferred onto the string, which vibrates. These vibrations are heard by our ears as sound.
@newsflash
You seem to be very selective in how you reply to my questions? There is still the issue of why you believe there can be such a thing as underunity which I find very confusing. This would seem to contradict the conservation of energy and 100 years of physics.
Quote from: allcanadian on January 31, 2009, 01:22:38 PM
@newsflash
You seem to be very selective in how you reply to my questions? There is still the issue of why you believe there can be such a thing as underunity which I find very confusing. This would seem to contradict the conservation of energy and 100 years of physics.
Just what the HELL are you talking about. Underunity is where you get less energy out than in. That is the case for every system in the history of everything. Go back to school.
Quote from: newsflash on January 31, 2009, 08:57:06 AM
But you guys, you're a bunch of non-scientists, for some reason playing around all day with concepts that will never work.
Quote from: z.monkey on January 31, 2009, 09:00:07 AM
Ignoramus...
I am an actual scientist, employed as a scientist, and you are an ignoramus...
*chimes in
I told you this thread would get more posts than most good ideas.
- - - -
It's simply distracting me at this point. People meddle in science, it's how they discover. If they already knew the end result to which they seek, then there might be no other creation save for what is wanted to be created - given the state of human nature, the net result would be a minimalist society primarily revolving around an alpha male structure; but as it so happens, our would of interactions is filled with novelty items and other generally useless things that one person or another has come to find useful, or God forbid, entertaining, and this system has motioned in favor of other social forms and ways of living different from that of a pride of lions.
If we were to all truly be ignoramuses then we'd have to forget about the idea of science as it stands.
If we meddle in many things, we come up with many things. These products may eventually result in the construction of something useful. This is the idea behind open source at least.
Most 10 year olds can answer a question too, so I wouldn't bandy about estimations of intelligence capability and understanding based on age at this point.
I'll re-iterate.
newsflash, why do you think these very learned men upon whose theories you rest in justification of your stance, label them so?
Let me help you.
From Merriam Webster:
Main Entry:
the·o·ry Listen to the pronunciation of theory
Pronunciation:
\ˈthÄ"-É™-rÄ", ˈthir-Ä"\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural the·o·ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek theÅria, from theÅrein
Date:
1592
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances â€"often used in the phrase in theory<in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Pay distinct attention to definition #5 's equation of plausible and scientific acceptable general principle and then consider the definition of plausible.
Main Entry:
plau·si·ble Listen to the pronunciation of plausible
Pronunciation:
\ˈplȯ-zə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Latin plausibilis worthy of applause, from plausus, past participle of plaudere
Date:
1565
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious <a plausible pretext>
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive <a swindler… , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman â€" R. W. Emerson>
3 : appearing worthy of belief <the argument was both powerful and plausible>
....and notice that "superficial" and "appearance" seem the operative words.
It might be that such learned people know that they are just providing the "best excuse" until someone else comes along with a better one that answers more questions.
Just a guess ;)
P.S. The same energy was used to pluck the string of both the electric and the acoustic, but the acoustic used the tool of a sound box to amplify the volume of that finger pluck instead of the input of more energy from an electric amplifier.
The string may vibrate at the same way with the same frequency on both guitars, but I may not hear the note in a crowded room from the electric without an electrical amplifier, but I can from the acoustic plucked note.
Seems someone had this theory about the soundbox being the only way to amplify the volume amplitude of a guitar note until Adolf Rickenbacker made available his device to the public.
Seems he had a theory too. I wonder if it will hold true as long as the soundbox's did.
@newsflash
QuoteJust what the HELL are you talking about. Underunity is where you get less energy out than in. That is the case for every system in the history of everything. Go back to school
No, what you are stating is impossible ---Here is an example, I put 100 watts of power into an electric motor and 60 watts performs work as power in turning the motor shaft, then where did the other 40 watts go?. Well, the other 40 watts was converted to heat and you would have me believe this is underunity when it is not nor could it ever be. I have converted 100 electrical watts into 60 watts of work and 40 watts of heat, nothing is lost and nothing is gained-----this is not underunity it is the conservation of energy, in case you do not understand--- Heat is a form of energy and 100w = 60w+40w
Quote---------
"Underunity is where you get less energy out than in."
Note you have said "ENERGY", the conservation of energy dictates that you cannot get less energy out than you put in or more because when ------ALL----- forms of energy are accounted for input must equal output. You are confusing useful energy with all forms of energy in general, it does not matter if the energy is useful or not it is always conserved 100% of it, this is unity-----this is basic physics.
Hi allcanadian :)
You are absolutley correct there. ;)
I have found it is best to just ignore those know it all's.
Don't waste your precious time on guy's like newsflash and other stupids.
Marco.
Quote from: allcanadian on January 31, 2009, 01:57:23 PM
Note you have said "ENERGY", the conservation of energy dictates that you cannot get less energy out than you put in or more because when ------ALL----- forms of energy are accounted for input must equal output. You are confusing useful energy with all forms of energy in general, it does not matter if the energy is useful or not it is always conserved 100% of it, this is unity-----this is basic physics.
Yes, I understand that. What we're dealing with IS useful energy. You can't make a free energy device if the energy coming out is useless heat, because you need another system to collect that heat, which also loses heat. Do you see how this works? All devices are inefficient because of a loss of heat.
Aaaaanyway, overunity doesn't come into any of this. You can never have more energy out than in. Just admit that overunity doesn't exist, and then we can start talking about real free energy devices. You know, ones that get energy from solar or other sources in the Universe.
Newsflash
Perhaps you could explain
How does a 300 F hydrogen gas flame become a 3200 F Flame with no variables changed ??
Except you hold it [the300F flame]against Titanium
Thats 10 times more out than in
Chet
The explenation has already been given.
It would be appropriate to say more energy out then you have to pay for.
For example if you put in let's say 100 Watts and the device put's out 1000 Watts, and you are only paying for the 100 Watts you put in, then You have 900Watts for free.
This can be labeld "overunity" but offcource it is not.
The 900 Watts have to come from somewhere.
Marco.
Quote from: ramset on January 31, 2009, 02:14:11 PM
How does a 300 F hydrogen gas flame become a 3200 F Flame with no variables changed ??
Except you hold it [the300F flame]against Titanium
Titanium is the source of energy. Eventually, the Titanium is going to burn away and be all gone.
How hard is this concept for you people to grasp? All energy has a source, and the energy is simply transferred from one source to another. Nothing is ever being created or destroyed.
@Marco
QuoteHi allcanadian
You are absolutley correct there.
I have found it is best to just ignore those know it all's.
Don't waste your precious time on guy's like newsflash and other stupids.
I know this is pointless but I enjoy the almost senseless debate every now and then, LOL. It helps me refine my debating skills for when I have to prove real physics to actual scientists who know there physics from years of experience. Actually I have found scientists are much more receptive than this member newsflash ,only because they can see and understand the bigger picture. In any case I better get back to work, I have had my fun for today.
Regards
AC
Quote from: blueroomelectronics on January 31, 2009, 11:15:08 AM
Really, what field of science?
My background is rather diverse...
When I was young my passion was plant life, as in botany and horticulture...
My second love is electronics, which started meager, but evolved into integrated circuit design and manufacturing, but living in a clean room sux...
Moved on to printed circuit board design and manufacturing...
Of course I had to integrate software into this mix, and now know many programming languages, starting with high level languages, such a C, BASIC, and G. But I had to get down to the fundamentals, so I learned assembly language as well.
On the side I am far advanced in electrical engineering, and electromagnetic design. I build my own guitar amplifiers, well and amplifiers for anything else I need one for...
Probably my strongest science is chemistry, a vital part of soldering, and manufacturing...
In the future I want to explore antigravity and time travel...
But my favorite science is still botany, and this is evident by the lush, vibrant beauty of my extensive garden which yields a plethora of fruits and vegetables...
Something else I am quite practiced in is natural healing (NOT medicine)...
If I see an abundance of free energy anywhere is in the plant kingdom. One tiny little seed will grow into a plant which will produce multitudinous pounds of fruit. Free groceries... Nummy...
Newsflash
Tell that to these guys
Is it possible to get more out than in
http://www.browngas.com/eng_bestkorea/history_1.htm
An HHO heater the inventor/seller infers he has running overunity
There is alot going on in the world
Chet
Quote from: allcanadian on January 31, 2009, 02:25:06 PM
@Marco
I know this is pointless but I enjoy the almost senseless debate every now and then, LOL. It helps me refine my debating skills for when I have to prove real physics to actual scientists who know there physics from years of experience. Actually I have found scientists are much more receptive than this member newsflash ,only because they can see and understand the bigger picture. In any case I better get back to work, I have had my fun for today.
Regards
AC
You didn't even respond to my last response.
You are correct in saying that total energy is not lost. Of course it isn't, hence energy cannot be created or destroyed....
But in terms of real useable energy, a system always loses energy... Read my last response, and stop being a cocky idiot. Overunity is impossible. Get a new hobby, like real, plausible free energy devices that don't use overunity.
Quote from: ramsetNewsflash
Tell that to these guys
http://www.browngas.com/eng_bestkorea/history_1.htm
Yes, that's getting energy from a SOURCE -- water!! It is not god damn overunity. And it almost certainly doesn't work, anyway.
Quote from: z.monkeyIf I see an abundance of free energy anywhere is in the plant kingdom. One tiny little seed will grow into a plant which will produce multitudinous pounds of fruit. Free groceries... Nummy...
Yeah, and how does the seed grow into a plant? Through SUNLIGHT (a source of energy) and WATER (another source of energy).. NO OVERUNITY!!!
Quote from: z.monkeyIn the future I want to explore antigravity and time travel...
Good luck.... At least if you're enjoying yourself with your unfounded craziness, that's all that matters.
News
ENERGY FROM WATER ?
You smokin something?
Chet
PS
How often do you change the heating element in YOUR water heater
Hello News,
If you haven't seriously considered the dynamics of resonance, it can be hard understand that energy gets stored in the system.
In this case, it's the air in the hollow body of an acoustic guitar.
An easy way to comprehend this is a swing.
Only.... I MEAN ONLY.... I SAID ONLY when the swing gets a small push at the exact... I MEAN EXACT... I SAID EXACT right frequency,
does it's swing amplitude grow.
99.9999999 % of all other frequencies result in little or no energy stored in the system (the swing).
This is the reason for your and conventional science's skepticism when it comes to more energy out than in.
So to sum up (pun intended) the swing stores the energy of each push in it's system.
The same thing happens with the air particles in the Hollow Body of an Acoustic Guitar.
It does not happen with the solid body of an Electric Guitar.
Why?.... Shape and Form can amplify specific frequencies.
Have you ever heard of the Q factor in Resonant Systems?
Q = 2*pi*(energy stored/energy dissipated per cycle)
A low Q system would be ringing a bell with your fingers holding the bell...it will not ring long.
A high Q system would be ringing the bell without fingers... it will ring a long time.
The point is.... ENERGY IS STORED IN THE SYSTEM when resonating.
Please acknowledge that you can now see that.
I do appreciate your response and thank you again for stirring people's minds.
Sincerely,
The Observer
P.S. A fun way to think about the swing is this,
I could tap my finger on your head for a minute, and you would say "that doesn't hurt... no harm was done to me."
I could tap my finger with SAME ENERGY mind you, on a swing.
I guess I need to say the the frequency of the tapping is the same as the natural frequency of the swing.
After 1 minute of pushing to a higher and higher amplitude, You stick your head in the path of the swing at its lowest point.
If you are still conscious, you would say "that hurts and I now have a bump on my head".
Why? Because the SWING STORED THE ENERGY of each tap... and let you have it's sum when your head was inserted into it's path.
I know this example sounds mean.
I am only illustrating the point in a way that cannot be argued with and is a bit funny at the same time,
so please don't take it personally. ;o)
So it sound like to me that this is all a misunderstanding of words. You are in fact right, there is no such thing as over unity, or under unity.
There are systems with a COP above 100%. Look at an air conditioning cycle. Systems with a COP of 700% have been designed.
But are you going to go as far as to say that we can't get power from an unknown source, say zero point, dark energy or what ever there are calling these days and convert it into a usable form.
I truly don’t believe that you are going to get energy out of nothing. But I am not going to say I understand everything either.
Quote from: newsflash on January 30, 2009, 09:50:39 PM
<SNIP
OVERUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. <SNAP>
THE EARTH IS FLAT. Period.
huhhh. damn. I have set my time machine to the wrong century.
In a hundred years, humankind will (re)name OverUnity as "COMMON PHYSICS".
QuoteHow hard is this concept for you people to grasp? All energy has a source, and the energy is simply transferred from one source to another. Nothing is ever being created or destroyed
and Conservation of Energy ...
Although there is merit to both statements they only apply to 3D dimension ... it does not apply quantumly .. if it did the Universe would not expand as it does ...
for the Conservation of Energy to hold its ground ... nothing would exist except when the initial energy surge was first introduced. Something had to create the elements even hydrogen which is a main building block. We just lack the knowledge so far to be able achieve overunity. We can although achieve unity but what energy we need in form of mechanical power or some other power. Cold fusion does provide somewhat of what we may call overyunity as there is no heat as a by-product. MIT has proven this.
I see the term overunity as a nice tag for alternative free energy schemes. And it holds true to a certain extent when the the energy comes from a source unknown or discredited by the mainstream books. Because when the system is drawn on paper and all of it´s accepted system boundaries are taken into consideration then it will indeed appear to be OU.
Of course full analysis and understanding of any OU phenomena will reveal the source of the energy.
But until the actual energy source and transfer mechanism are understood, which could take many years after the phenomena is discovered, OU seems a reasonable term to me.
So in summary, I see OU as a similar label to UFO. It´s like saying this thing provides power but nobody is really sure where it´s coming from, it seems to be doing something magical.
Griggs hydrosonic pump is one device I would call OU.
Quote from: sushimoto on January 31, 2009, 03:43:53 PM
THE EARTH IS FLAT. Period.
huhhh. damn. I have set my time machine to the wrong century.
In a hundred years, humankind will (re)name OverUnity as "COMMON PHYSICS".
ã"ã,"ã«ã¡ã¯ã€çœŸå®Ÿã¯ã§ã,ã,‹å...¨ãフã,£ã,¯ã,·ãƒ§ãƒ³ã,ˆã,Šå¥‡å¦™â€¦
Edit, well my Japanese didn't work out as I would have liked...
What it should read is: Hello, Truth is stranger than fiction...
Oh, Well!
Quote from: newsflash on January 31, 2009, 02:33:09 PM
Yeah, and how does the seed grow into a plant? Through SUNLIGHT (a source of energy) and WATER (another source of energy).. NO OVERUNITY!!!
Well, I am glad that you have appointed yourself the grand overdenyer of OU, your highness...
Stephan, OUers, looks like
Newsflash has just burst the bubble for everyone...
Might as well rip down overunity.com, and call all our efforts pointless and futile...
Might as well trash all our dreams and aspirations, because
Newsflash has it ALL figured out...
Looks like I might as well quit science and go get a job at the Clown Burger Restaurant...
Thanks
Newsflash! I don't know what I would have done without your Revelations...
@ The Observer,
Come on now, observer. I’ve seen a much better understanding on your side in many previous posts. But the guitar example is childish and wrong.
A guitar body is called an "amplifier" for obvious historical and apparent reasons: when employed, sound hears much louder. But it is mere a mechanic-acoustic converter (pretty much like the membrane of any speaker). The bare sting vibrates but due to its shape is not appropriate for passing its energy into the air at a high enough rate hence the sound is not very loud. The body of the guitar (as well as of other musical string instruments) does exactly that: converts the mechanical energy of the string into acoustical energy. If your goal when playing guitar is to heat the room, it doesn’t matter if you use the resonating body or not. ;) Nonetheless, energy is the same with or without it. No OU.
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: z.monkey on January 31, 2009, 03:59:10 PM
こんにちは、真実はである全くフィクションより奇妙…
Edit, well my Japanese didn't work out as I would have liked...
What it should read is: Hello, Truth is stranger than fiction...
Oh, Well!
YEAH *LOL*
We both agree.
Quote
Thanks Newsflash! I don't know what I would have done without your Revelations...
So lets call it "Conversation of Energy" instead of "Conservation of Energy"
creation of energy
OMG-WTF
The Matter/Antimatter reaction in the Dilithium chamber of my ship produces more energy than is supplied to the reaction chamber...
Tinu,
You said...
"A guitar body is called an "amplifier" for obvious historical and apparent reasons: when employed, sound hears much louder. "
"Sound hears much louder"? I hope English is not your native tongue.
I challenge your assessment of the guitar example as childish and wrong.
Since you mentioned child... I will have to bring up another simple example of resonance.
Are you familiar with tuning forks?
Question 1... 1 fork a has a natural frequency of 440 H.z the second a natural frequency of 400 Hz.
I ring the 440 Hz fork... does the 400 fork ring? Please answer this because I want to know if you have a clue.
Question 2... 1 fork has a natural frequency of 440 HZ the second has a natural frequency of 440 Hz
I ring the 1st 440 Hz fork... does the second 440 Hz ring? Please answer this.
Question 3... Provided you got Question 1 and 2 right.
How does energy transfer from 1 fork to the other and why does the second fork ring in only 1 instance?
I understand what you think.
You think the end of the string pulls on the body of the guitar causing it to vibrate.
Am I right?
What you don't understand is the nature of waves and nodes.
The string vibrates most at it's antinode.(the middle of the string) and not at all at it's 2 nodes (the ends of the string)
The energy is passed into the body of the guitar through the air as a wave or vibration.
Then the body of the guitar stores the air vibrations just like the swing I mentioned earlier.
Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.
Hope this helps.
I got more if you need it.
No matter how you think it works...
There is now way around the fact that to produce a louder sound (or waves of higher amplitude)... you need more energy.
It is the simplest physics there is.
To be clear once again.
The Acoustic Box of an Acoustic Guitar Amplifies the sound.
The Hard Body of an Electric Guitar does not Amplify sound.
Amplification requires Extra Energy.
Resonance is a Phenomenon.
The Observer
I think that Mr news is just pulling your chains
he is right about waht he hs said .
That does not mean that we cannot create devices that TAP a different source that the ones beaten into us ...Does it?
"Argue for your limitations and you get to keep them"
richard bach
Loner,
I agree that OU is not a great term.
There are unrecognized sources of free energy... and that is what this forum is concerned with.
The point is... We now pay for energy...save the wind and sun.
Powers that be would dearly like the pay for energy paradigm to continue.
The pay for energy paradigm will end when currently unrecognized sources of energy are realized en masse.
I say resonance is one unrecognized source... and the phenomenon of Magnetic Permeability as it relates to Anisotropic Energy is another.
The Observer
It has been fun, if only to deliberate upon the reason _I_ keep prodding at the envelope.
But let's try it a different way. Maybe 3rd time is the charm for a question.
@ newsflash
We know you hold magnets and gravity in contempt for their ability to perform power generation (outside of standard energy generation methods they are already being used) without the use of another energy source.
What are the "free" energy generation disciplines that ARE worthwhile of pursuing that you deem worthy? (Besides solar.)
@news fish guy STOP learning and START building. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyCe5kOjiSE
@ newsflash
Imagine every ou guy com'n at u, just not u, but the worlds non helpers, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NnT0FSO5hM&feature=channel_page
hi every one
i' think i now can convinced newsflash with my question?
DO YOU THINK EARTH IS ROTATING AND REVOLVING?
if Yes then
CASE CLOSED NO MORE QUESTION YOUR HONOR!!!! ;D
God bless ;)
otits
hi newsflash take a look at this
how can you explain this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0
God Bless
otits
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on February 01, 2009, 06:26:58 AM
hi newsflash take a look at this
how can you explain this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3562588371166049574
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9ARja0DiT0
God Bless
otits
1st: inertia ;D and generator-motor behavior;
2nd: fake ;)
please don't mention the crackpots and sand-builders again, ok? they really don't deserve much attention until they show something that has at least some minimal value. are you one of their followers?!
Quote from: The Observer on January 31, 2009, 05:37:24 PM
"Sound hears much louder"? I hope English is not your native tongue.
No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?
Quote from: The Observer on January 31, 2009, 05:37:24 PM
I challenge your assessment of the guitar example as childish and wrong.
Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.
Quote from: The Observer on January 31, 2009, 05:37:24 PM
Since you mentioned child... I will have to bring up another simple example of resonance.
Are you familiar with tuning forks?
Question 1... 1 fork a has a natural frequency of 440 H.z the second a natural frequency of 400 Hz.
I ring the 440 Hz fork... does the 400 fork ring? Please answer this because I want to know if you have a clue.
Question 2... 1 fork has a natural frequency of 440 HZ the second has a natural frequency of 440 Hz
I ring the 1st 440 Hz fork... does the second 440 Hz ring? Please answer this.
Question 3... Provided you got Question 1 and 2 right.
How does energy transfer from 1 fork to the other and why does the second fork ring in only 1 instance?
I understand what you think.
You think the end of the string pulls on the body of the guitar causing it to vibrate.
Am I right?
What you don't understand is the nature of waves and nodes.
The string vibrates most at it's antinode.(the middle of the string) and not at all at it's 2 nodes (the ends of the string)
The energy is passed into the body of the guitar through the air as a wave or vibration.
Then the body of the guitar stores the air vibrations just like the swing I mentioned earlier.
Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.
...
Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!
I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one
AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.
I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.â€. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?! ;D
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on February 01, 2009, 08:09:46 AM
No, it’s not. How should I’ve said it?
Then prove me wrong.
I say that the entire acoustic energy is much less than that used when the guitar player plucks the string.
Shifting the whole problem before dissecting it?!
I’ll come back with a detailed answer for you if not satisfied but for now, as I’m a little busy for today, here it is in a condensed form:
1. Whether or not the second fork vibrates, it depends on the spectral purity (Fourier transform) of both forks. Radio-folks and those working in electronics may prefer Q factor; it’s pretty much the same thing.
2. The second fork is excited by the first one AND the first one is dampened.
3. The node limits in wave equations you may be tempted to evoke is not correct as the string does not end where a node is forced to manifest. Most musical instruments are built that way for a good reason. Not only that there are no perfectly rigid materials but, even more, usually a certain piece of wood (or a combination of pieces) is precisely used to help transferring the vibration of the string to the resonant body.
I find amusing that in the end you recognize, in a mild form, the conservation of energy: “Finally the body of the guitar vibrates commensurate with the amplitude of the antinode of the wave stored in the guitar.â€. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?! ;D
Cheers,
Tinu
From a reasoning point of view, I do not see that resonance can produce any excess energy or an energy that comes from another source that does not need to be paid back if a load is placed on it. Therefore, I do not see a source of energy to obtain energy from, with resonance. It is basically a frequency trap. A permanent magnet however does produce a magnetic field which is continuous without any known outside source of power being needed for this to continue, even under a load. The issue for science seems to be that there is not a method known yet to tap into this energy at an overall gain, so it therefore must not be possible until proven otherwise.
I can't think of any other natural thing that continuously produces without external power input, an energy (similar to an electromagnet which requires electrical power input), like a permanent magnet. It appears to me that the way a permanent magnet internally operates, may be a type of overunity device. (Having potential for more power out than directed input energy). What is needed, is to understand how to tap this potential atomic energy at an overall gain.
Quote from: newsflash on January 30, 2009, 09:50:39 PM
It wouldn't. The Universe is and always will be. It has always existed. It was not "created".. Its energy is simply circulated and transferred.
A lot of scientists believe this. And even if you don't, there is also the BIG BANG theory (most common). You know, something that ALREADY EXISTED exploded into a Universe. Hence, there is no original creation, just transfer of matter. The Universe EXPLODED into existence, exploded from something else that already existed.
OVERUNITY IS IMPOSSIBLE. End of story. Free energy is possible, to the point where it's never practically going to run out, because there is such a vast amount of energy in the Universe from which to use.
But energy out of nothing? No. There will always be a source.
Well if energy is simply circulated and transferred, that is overunity !
@tinu
QuoteI’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
@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
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...
Quote" 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...
Quote
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....
Quote"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...
QuoteNot 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,
QuoteI 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.â€. So, a guitar is not OU. What are we actually discussing?! ;D
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
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"? ;D
Cheers!
QuoteTinu, 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!
I would like to buttress the notion of a tuning fork in the previous examples:
If you have two of these devices, made to be as perfectly identical as modern manufacturing techniques allow, then striking one will most likely have an effect on the other within the realms of the inverse square laws proportional to distance, etc.
Some arguments to OU suggest that if you have a series of evenly spaced tuning forks a radial distance away from a central tuning fork, and you strike this tuning fork, that the sum of the external effects will be greater than the internal effect if the number of the external members exceeds the number need to .... in other words, if the internal member is effecting an external member where F represents the effects of the internal member and F/12 represents the effects on the external member at distance Q, then having 13 members radially placed at distance Q will demonstrate principles of over unity since the sums of effects on the external members is greater than the internal effect.
Imagine, if you will, a stone-henge of tuning forks, where the internal stone is a tuning fork of equal tune the external tuning forks. There are other factors involved, such as air density, transference to ground and the tendency to mechanically nullify, but the IDEA of it all, for exemplary purposes, is sound.
[pun intended, 8) ]
Now apply the idea to a series of resonant coils, and you may have yourself a device - remember to think in all three dimensions as well.
Consider a resonance similiar to a playground swing.
A alittle girl is able to swing herself using minimal force, its the timing that she must get right to build the momentum. Once loaded the swing loses its momentum, she will need to start all over again to build the momentum gradually.
So there is no big energy from little energy happening there. Its the gradual build up that increase the amplitude of the swing.
Greetings Chris,
The Swing is an excellent example of Resonance.
That's why I brought it up 2 or 3 pages ago to illustrate to NewsFlash that energy is stored in a Resonating System.
I hope you can agree with me on that. ;o)
Now the only bridge that needs to be crossed is undertanding more energy is output.
There are 2 ways that the swing loses energy...
1. The creak / friction of the fulcrum (where the top of the swing connects to the swing set)
2. Air resistance. of the child, swing and chains.
Now let's begin with the first push.
The child swings a foot.... there is a small creak at the fulcrum... there is a small amount of wind disturbance.
Second Push
The child swings 2 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.
3rd Push
Hope you know where I'm going with this !
Nth Push... where the Q of the system is reached.... that is, gravity will not let you add any more energy to the system.
The child swings 10 feet... The creak at the fulcrum is very loud.....There is a lot of wind disturbance.
Now I hope you will acknowledge that the story begins with........ small push = small creak / little wind disturbance.
and the the story ends with........ small push = loud creak / a lot of wind disturbance.
Tell me Please... Please.... Please....
How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?
I have silenced quite a few in these last few days with this thread.
Please reply... there is nothing wrong with saying..."Oh, I can see what you are talking about !"
Then we will be on the same team !
Yours Truly,
The Observer
Quote from: The Observer on February 03, 2009, 08:08:35 PM
How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?
...If you're pushing something off of a cliff, or table top. :)
I can see what you're saying; can you see what I mean though (with regard to a tuning fork expample, revising this, though, there would need to be a number of additions forks in an even number. I may try this example - replicate it, but tuning forks cost a fortune for their purpose, perhaps i can just make some with an equal symmetry across all of them for cheaper. all it has to do is resonate, the real question is, will it reflect back to source.)
Swings are a good example too, recall though, that swing is at it's maximum speed at the lowest point of its undulation. When taking this into account, it may be more usefull to harness that power of the approaches at maximum swing hieght rather than at lowest - the net result would mean less netw back emf generated at height rather than at depth.
Quote from: The Observer on February 03, 2009, 08:08:35 PM
Tell me Please... Please.... Please....
How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?
Please reply... there is nothing wrong with saying..."Oh, I can see what you are talking about !"
I hate to answer this since I'll seem like a naysayer but since I am an active experimenter, I won't worry about my rep.
First push
The child swings 1 foot.... there is a small creak at the fulcrum... there is a small amount of wind disturbance.
There is also energy left in this system as is clearly shown by the fact that, if left alone, the swing would
swing again and again and again, a little less each time until it stops.
Second push
The child swings 2 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.
The reason the child swung 2 feet instead of 1 foot is because of the leftover energy from the 1st push.
Third push
The child swings 3 feet... there is a bit larger creak at the fulcrum... there is a bit more wind disturbance.
The reason the child swung 3 feet instead of 2 foot is because of the leftover energy from the 1st and 2nd pushes.
Nth Push...
The child swings 10 feet... The creak at the fulcrum is very loud.....There is a lot of wind disturbance.
The reason the Nth small push gave a 10 foot swing, the very loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance is because of the leftover energy from the previous pushes. Though it's impossible to say which leftover energy is from which previous push, it may very well be that by the Nth push none is left from the 1st push, but these are all rough numbers anyway.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org http://wsminfo.org
Jadaro,
The most simple tuning fork experiment it to see if 2 ringing (one forcing the other) is louder than just 1.
I say YES !
Steve.
I think you can see what I am saying.
Your Leftover Energy is my Stored Energy.
The point is... that by the nth push, more energy is being dissipated than on the 1st push.
It is interesting that a mouse could theoretically lift 100 lbs 10 feet using a pendulum.
Have a Good One,
The Observer
Quote from: The Observer on February 03, 2009, 11:35:24 PM
Jadaro,
The most simple tuning fork experiment it to see if 2 ringing (one forcing the other) is louder than just 1.
I say YES !
Steve.
I think you can see what I am saying.
Your Leftover Energy is my Stored Energy.
The point is... that by the nth push, more energy is being dissipated than on the 1st push.
It is interesting that a mouse could theoretically lift 100 lbs 10 feet using a pendulum.
Have a Good One,
The Observer
A mouse moving 100lbs over 10 feet is work done over time...so how far did the mouse move? etc.
The idea behind the sing and the momentum laws is that if you extract energy from the swing, then as much work that is done to keep the swing moving is as much work that is taken out of the momentum of the system. When there is a large amount of mass going back and forth, the amount of energy that is needed to keep it moving may be less than what is used. IT may only appear to be doing more work than is going in ..one has to take into account the energy expended putting the swing into motion.
It is indeed true that it takes less energy to keep something going rather than initially start it. There is logic to you idea, Observer, but there is also a large handful of counter forces at work.
Quote from: The Observer on February 03, 2009, 08:08:35 PMTell me Please... Please.... Please....
How can a small push produce a loud creak and a lot of wind disturbance?
I have silenced quite a few in these last few days with this thread.
Please reply... there is nothing wrong with saying..."Oh, I can see what you are talking about !"
LOL maybe I should just agree with you? ;D
If we put the whole swing (and the girl) in a vaccum, assuming there is no loses. In theory the swing should forever run. Like I said earlier, the swing higher amplitude is due to the build up from a small energy applied with correct timing, in this case the little girl is building up each time she push. She did not instantly create that big energy to overcome all the loses. The previous poster made a better explanations 8)
This is why once you load a resonating system, it quickly loses its amplitude, that is because in our case the little girl is not able to restore the swing back to its highest amplitude. She is only able to restore that again (gradually) once the load is removed.
Althought its not resonance, a man can push a car on a flat road. The man start off very slow, after a while he is able to push the car at a speed. Over comming all the drags, now that car travelling at let say 15mphs weighing a ton and contains alot of energy. The amount of energy there should be less the amount of energy the man has put in at the first place.
There is a few thread here about resonance, joule theif, etc etc. The thing is althought theres alot of voltage there but the current is reduced.
I know its a bitch, but it is almost always like this, it either a big current - small voltage or big voltage - small current.
I hope there is something out there that will truly amplify what we put it.
I know I dont explain very well but I think you get the idea ;D
Quote from: The Observer on February 03, 2009, 11:35:24 PM
It is interesting that a mouse could theoretically lift 100 lbs 10 feet using a pendulum.
LOL I know its sounds good, but it is the same way as a man can lift 1 tons of weight. Use a hydraulic jack ;D
This time the man did not lift the 1 ton in one go, he lifted it gradually. Pumping the hydraulic, moving his arm many times just to move the weight by an inch.
Quote from: blueroomelectronics on January 30, 2009, 09:03:46 PM
Well at least paragraph one is accurate.
wrong both of ya !
Free energy (that we want and is possible) works this way. source flowing to destination then destination becomes source and source becomes destination. again source flowing to destination that flow is free (from which we extract energy) and absolutely nothing is destroyed or changed in a given space of free energy setup.
Just like todays electrons are not lost or damaged or vanished or "frozen" when they go to famous GND.
wiz
You guys are confusing stored energy in resonance with over unity. The devices (swing, tuning fork, etc) are storing energy. You put energy in and if you keep adding, it will store up to some maximum. Thats what resonance is, the objects are storing the energy within themselves. If you damp the system, you can take that energy out. Air resistance and friction are just forms of damping. Without them, it would store the energy indefinitely.
The swing and tuning fork are examples of single resonant systems. Allcanadian mentioned a system with two resonant objects coupled to each other. The effects in such a double system are much cooler because you can store more energy and cause the amplitudes to be much more powerful than you could in a single resonant setup.
Let's do a simple thought experiment, place two pendulums--two small swings and two tuning forks fixed at the base and put them all on a table top. Set one pendulum in motion---what happens to the other one? Answer--nothing. Set one of the small swings in motion---what happens to the other one? Answer--nothing. Strike one of the tuning forks---what happens? Answer--the other tuning fork starts to vibrate!. Many here are confusing things having similar motions as being the same thing when they simply cannot be. In the next thought experiment we will place a tuning fork attached at the base to a table top, this table is fixed at each corner with rubber feet so it can resonate freely within the space occupied between the rubber feet. If the tuning fork is resonant with the table top a wave like motion will occur in the mass of the table top, the sound produced by the table top will be very loud compared to the tuning fork. Now if the table top producing a great deal of sound has done nothing other than store energy then why is the motion of the tuning fork not dampened in proportion to the magnitude of the sound generated by the table top? Why does the table top seem to be dissipating a great deal of energy as sound while the tuning fork would seem to be losing very little energy?. It seems very much more likely that resonance is not the storage of energy but is a condition of mass, if energy is stored then it must come from somewhere so in the example above why is the motion of the tuning fork not dampened relative to the table tops apparent gain in energy?
Regards
AC
Hello all,
Let's get back to the Acoustic Guitar vs. Electric Guitar (not plugged in) example.
Agree? that the Acoustic Guitar is much much louder than the electric with same string same strum...
If you don't agree with that then we have a problem.
Essentially what you have is the Acoustic guitar has 2 "tuning forks"( the string and hollow body) and the electric has 1 "tuning fork" (the string).
Ok, you should all be familiar with this equation that I shall use to prove that more energy is present.
------------> sound intensity = sound power / (4 pi R2) <------------
When standing a distance of 10 feet from the experimentation area,
the acoustic guitar's Sound intensity is 100's of times greater than the electric guitar's Sound Intensity..
Because (4 pi R2) is exactly the same... that is we are standing at the same distance "R" from both guitars during each experiment,
and since Sound intensity is proportional to Sound Power,
This means that....tada-----> Sound Power (Acoustic Guitar) > Sound Power (Electric Guitar)
It is a short proof... and one that cannot be argued with by speculation.
Stick this in your pipe, smoke it, and tell me if you feel anything?
Have an excellent day,
The Observer
to all !
first
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6697.msg155148#msg155148
to explain
universe (it's many basic quantum mechanisms) has frictionless "bearings", magnetics,gravitycs...even such known bearings accelerates the system !!! have you ever heard of such bearings !!! well universe has it. therefore can establish ideal resonance (source media flowing to destination...back and forth)
with ultra infinite Q factor, and beyond.
There are mechanisms beyond Energy that sustains its Source-Destination flow.
So if FE-OU device is properly build all of the inbalance is sustained in FE-OU setup itself, we will be using only flow(its change), nothing is depleted or used, ever...
...this is not theory or make belief. it is experimentally proven...hey unbelivers wake up:
- electron current flows indefinetly in superconducting elements (at certain temepratures), electron has mass !!! and there are many !!! (although small)
it is like unvierse has mechnaisms to make things hotter (fuller of energy flow) in certain conditions. It doesn't allow particles to fully rest and stop in fact when universe kicks the ball it can't stop...it has this magic bearings.
- when entering planet orbit, mass is accelerating (at certain angle) in the same time energy is not invested !!! The curvature path acelerates mass and mass preserves this speed exiting planets orbit !?! Is Gravity=Energy ? certanly not , but gravity is static how can it "produce" acceleration of mass. Gravity and Magentism can make the flow and if we do not desturb it and put it right nothing is depleted and we have Free Energy for eternity...and than another mile.
Although mass was acelerated due to gravity effect, this acceleration (gain in energy) did not lower gravitys force. it still has same gravity strenght !!! absolutely nothing is depleted or even taken a smallest bit, but energy is gained !!!
- same with magnet. steell ball entering magnetic field (distanced enough from magnet) goes through that mag. field changes vector, accelerates and makes ball make longer path (s) than it would make with only small push without magnet. by making ball making longer path (s) magnet did not lost absolutely non of it's initial magnetism, but ball
certanly gained energy.
.
.
Wiz
QuoteNow if the table top producing a great deal of sound has done nothing other than store energy then why is the motion of the tuning fork not dampened in proportion to the magnitude of the sound generated by the table top? Why does the table top seem to be dissipating a great deal of energy as sound while the tuning fork would seem to be losing very little energy?. It seems very much more likely that resonance is not the storage of energy but is a condition of mass, if energy is stored then it must come from somewhere so in the example above why is the motion of the tuning fork not dampened relative to the table tops apparent gain in energy?
I think the answer is because the table is acting as a resonant cavity. The impedance of the tuning fork and the table are greatly different but they share the same resonant frequency. So the small amount of energy that is received by the table is stored within the table. The waves reflect internally within the table and add to each incoming wave before it dies, so the amplitude grows very large (much larger than that of the tuning fork because of the mass). Larger amplitude produces greater sound. There is probably a small feed back that occurs and causes the vibrations to not die as rapidly. However, the sound is the radiative part of the energy and this is what slowly destroys the oscillations (otherwise it would ring like this forever). Resonance IS a condition of mass but it is how the mass stores energy. What happens if you dampen the table, will it cause the tuning fork to also dampen - or atleast to not vibrate as long?
Quote from: allcanadian on February 04, 2009, 11:36:29 AM
Let's do a simple thought experiment, place two pendulums--two small swings and two tuning forks fixed at the base and put them all on a table top. Set one pendulum in motion---what happens to the other one? Answer--nothing. Set one of the small swings in motion---what happens to the other one? Answer--nothing. Strike one of the tuning forks---what happens? Answer--the other tuning fork starts to vibrate!.
Because the tuning fork energy is transfered to the table and in turn vibrate the tuning fork next to it.
For the pendulum and the swing of course nothing will happen to the other two because there is no transfer of energy.
The tuning forks would show their potential if hung like wind chimes, and allowed to be free in the air, at this point both physical and oscillatory effect could be observed. In this instance, the transference would be at it's least - at least in the realm of gravity, doing this on the space station may yield entirely different results requiring a different setup all together.
Hi to all
i just want this one to be seen
it seems that it uses only a little energy and produces alot of output.
god bless
otits
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on February 05, 2009, 02:25:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0
Nice setup there, I still cant see free energy though. Seriously, any device that has a potential to produce free energy would quickly give the invertor great interest. Most likely will never go public during development until...
I have seen so many videos implying free energy, when ask if they closed the loop, guess what? they have never though of it, they run out of funds, lost interest, moved house or something along those line.
I dont know why some of these people just cant be honest about it.
Alot of the so called free energy device pretty much end there. :-\
Over unity has been proven countless times, the history of science is the history of over unity suppression, HHO proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt, the skeptics all argued in the beginning that the electrolysis of water can not produce enough hydrogen to make one bit of difference, well thousands upon thousands are reporting it.
The thing is both are right, there is not enough hydrogen being produced to make a difference well many are reporting 20 to 50 percent mileage increase, the truth is they are getting this increase from an ion/plasma energy.
I run a negatively charged fuel cell known as the Joe cell, and I have doubled my fuel mileage, by negatively charging my water fuel cell I only use 5 to 10 minutes of positive then leave the negative on, this drains the electrons out the negative and creates HHO/ions/plasma, all held stable in the water.
This is over unity energy.
Cheers.
Scott.
Quote from: Tito L. Oracion on February 05, 2009, 02:25:35 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a49d5cJOGQ0
Company ,longtime not exist longer
GP
It is my opinion that overunity with regard to magnet motors will be proven very soon. A shield that blocks permanent magnetic fields will soon be uncovered. When that happens, magnet motors will emerge in hundreds of different configurations. The person who invents the perfect magnetic shield will be more famous than Edison. Current so called magnetic shields are worthless in the magnet motor arena.
Quote from: zydubion on May 03, 2009, 01:42:44 AM
It is my opinion that overunity with regard to magnet motors will be proven very soon. A shield that blocks permanent magnetic fields will soon be uncovered. When that happens, magnet motors will emerge in hundreds of different configurations. The person who invents the perfect magnetic shield will be more famous than Edison. Current so called magnetic shields are worthless in the magnet motor arena.
Already been done, check youtube. Didn't work.
Nyctuber...Since you did not read my post correctly, I will repeat and use other words so you understand....Present so called shields are have no affect what-so-ever on permanent magnets. When I say SHIELD, I mean SHIELD as in totally block out the magnetic field. No material in the universe as of today has that ability.
G-search Gary's magnetic motor.
Yes you cannot truly block a magnetic field, but you can absorb it, and remove its effect for a certain area. To do this you need to find the neutral line of a magnet, preferably a horseshoe magnet. Once you find the neutral line, you can move a piece of soft iron parallel to the line without doing any work, but you will hinder the field in moving farther away.
Gary did this with two horseshoe magnets years ago. Its very hard to find, and even harder to perfect, but when set up correctly you can practically turn on and of a magnetic field without doing any considerable work.
And the energy again...where does it come from!!?!?
Well, it comes from the virtual particle flux, which is the prime source of all energy existing in the physical world, and according to present particle theory, it "bounces" back and forth between a real state and a virtual state, which means that at one point it exists as a true particle, and in the next one it disappears completely.
'Real' over unity does not exist, just like 'real' under unity does not exists.
In every theoretically "closed system" which we can think of, the energy inside will always be in perfect unity. If not, then either something was created out of nothing, or else something was destroyed. You can do NEITHER to energy.
Free energy is what this forum is all about, most of the researchers here have probably arrived at the same conclusion. You cannot create something out of nothing, it is as physically impossible as it is philosophically impossible. Guess what karma is? It is the results of your own actions acting towards you. You cannot live of on other peoples sweat and tears, and then hope that it will stay that way.
Every actions causes a reaction, of some kind.
Think about that....
And the energy again...where does it come from!!?!?
Well, it comes from the virtual particle flux, which is the prime source of all energy existing in the physical world, and according to present particle theory, it "bounces" back and forth between a real state and a virtual state, which means that at one point it exists as a true particle, and in the next one it disappears completely.
'Real' over unity does not exist, just like 'real' under unity does not exists.
In every theoretically "closed system" which we can think of, the energy inside will always be in perfect unity. If not, then either something was created out of nothing, or else something was destroyed. You can do NEITHER to energy.
Ok, that didn't make sense. You can do "You can do NEITHER to energy", whe it comes to creating something out of nothing or else something was destroyed. Right before that you just said "it bounces back and forth between a real state and a virtual state, which means that at one point it exists as a true particle, and in the next one it disappears completely.
If it disappears completely then it's like it's destroyed and when it appears it like it's created from nothing. LOL. Energy created from nothing is very common from your first statement if it's disappears completely. If it's gone completely and does not exist and it comes back all of a sudden then you obviously can get energy from nothing. Come on now. Don't contradict yourselves because none of us really know what is really going on when it comes to tapping energy and at the same time trying to explain why the universe works. :)
Quote from: zydubion on May 03, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
Nyctuber...Since you did not read my post correctly, I will repeat and use other words so you understand....Present so called shields are have no affect what-so-ever on permanent magnets. When I say SHIELD, I mean SHIELD as in totally block out the magnetic field. No material in the universe as of today has that ability.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6bE9TzetSA
Looks like a total block to me. His motor attempt didn't work.
Quote from: friendryan on May 08, 2009, 09:22:39 AM
And the energy again...where does it come from!!?!?
Well, it comes from the virtual particle flux, which is the prime source of all energy existing in the physical world, and according to present particle theory, it "bounces" back and forth between a real state and a virtual state, which means that at one point it exists as a true particle, and in the next one it disappears completely.
'Real' over unity does not exist, just like 'real' under unity does not exists.
In every theoretically "closed system" which we can think of, the energy inside will always be in perfect unity. If not, then either something was created out of nothing, or else something was destroyed. You can do NEITHER to energy.
Ok, that didn't make sense. You can do "You can do NEITHER to energy", whe it comes to creating something out of nothing or else something was destroyed. Right before that you just said "it bounces back and forth between a real state and a virtual state, which means that at one point it exists as a true particle, and in the next one it disappears completely.
If it disappears completely then it's like it's destroyed and when it appears it like it's created from nothing. LOL. Energy created from nothing is very common from your first statement if it's disappears completely. If it's gone completely and does not exist and it comes back all of a sudden then you obviously can get energy from nothing. Come on now. Don't contradict yourselves because none of us really know what is really going on when it comes to tapping energy and at the same time trying to explain why the universe works. :)
You misunderstood me, or I didn't explain the obvious.
Energy is not created and is not destroyed.
The fact that todays scientists thinks that particles are created out of nothing and then destroyed again, only proves that they doesn't have the full picture.
Probably, at the border where the physical particles of energy goes over into the "virtual", it has left the physical world, and enters another world our dimension which we today cannot comprehend.
The theory of Broken Symmetry which is highly recognized, assumes that energy is destroyed and created all the time, at incredible rates and magnitudes.
This is the Virtual Particle Flux, but we can only see one side of it.
Therefore we 'assume' that the energy disappear.
I hope you get now what I was trying to say.
Of course its not so easy to explain how the whole world works ;D
But then again, it is a thought problem which is meant to be solved ;)