Free Energy Party Green Machine - 3rd Party verified Overunity Electrolyzer

[memoryman]

Dog-One, matter and energy are interchangeable.
"this process could be reversed to extract real known power from some unknown source?" you better have some very good evidence.

[Dog-One]

Dog-One, matter and energy are interchangeable.
"this process could be reversed to extract real known power from some unknown source?" you better have some very good evidence.

Completely hypothetical.

I'm just curious as to Tinsel's viewpoint.  Would he painstakingly attempt to track it down, or just give up and conclude it's not possible.

My reasoning for this line of questioning is simple...

If we are all chasing ghosts, then it's time to get off this crazy train and go do something else productive.  Close down overunity.com and the hoard of other such forums and declare we tried, we failed.  Otherwise, if there is still a glimmer of hope that nature may be wired together in a way that alludes our intellect, then we have at least a direction to continue forward with.

It's the difference between searching for a needle in a haystack and knowing with absolute certainty there is no needle in the haystack, period.

[sm0ky2]

Now I think you are playing around with words and concepts.

Efficiency, as we typically use it here, means the ratio of energy INPUT to energy OUTPUT. So if a device actually puts out more energy than it takes in from all sources, we say that it is more than 100 percent efficient.

However, if some kind of device, like a generator design, starts out at say 40 percent efficiency (it only puts out, in usable form, 40 percent of the energy it takes to run it) and by improving various things you now have boosted its efficiency to 90 percent...that's a _gain_ in efficiency of over 100 percent !!! You have more than doubled its efficiency !!
However, you still can't make it run itself, because your actual overall efficiency is less than 100 percent.

And there is no way that you can connect two or more devices, each with an actual efficiency less than 100 percent, and wind up with something that is greater than 100 percent efficiency overall.

(Of course if you want to nitpick, every device is 100 percent efficient, because that part of the input that is not useful output goes into waste heat, vibration, noise, etc, all of which will total to 100 percent of the input energy when everything is measured and the sums are done correctly. My electric room heater is 100 percent efficient because it turns all of the energy it uses into... heat for my room!)

Yes you are exactly correct.

Now, what then if you compare a device from the late 1800's early 1900's, that was considered to operate at 10% efficiency. (compared to todays standards).

We then have a device in modern times, that operates at 60% efficiency, (that's 600% improvement!!!)
that's not really what I'm talking about here...


What I am saying is this...

We have certain values, and equations, that we presume are the end all say all of what a certain thing is.

This has not necessarily remained constant throughout U.S. history.
I can't pin one particular factor, as it seems our physics has improved drastically across the board.
what we thought was once, was not. and what we think now is closer to what is. (but still probably not)

Consider the way we define what we "use.

whether it is electrical power, mechanical energy, heat transfer, etc.

the standard approach is Energy per hour per square foot per degree Fahrenheit

Or if you are from anywhere else than the U.S. it is measured as

Watts per square meter per degree kelvin

This has remained the standard approach since the advancement in physics occurred.

What does that mean to "efficiency" ?

Well, in the linear examination of olden days, efficiency was measured as a factor of the linear distance
that heat was transferred through a medium.

This, translated into electrical energy, was measured in the linear perspective (like a solenoid).
rather than the exponential expression we use today (like a circular rotary device).

the equations were expressed as energy per hour per foot per degree Fahrenheit.
or as Watts per meter per degree Kelvin.

As we developed technologies that must be considered in multiple vectors:
We learned that energy could be expressed in terms of the Area, not just the linear consideration.
This changed the quantity of energy perceived.

Now we are finding that we can express this in terms of the cubic volume, so we must again reevaluate the equations.

The new equations will soon transition to an expression of consumption as: 
Energy per hour per cubic foot per degree Fahrenheit
or in the metric world
Watts per cubic meter per degree Kelvin

We know this to be a necessary adjustment to our assessment of a quantity of energy.
This redefines what we consider to be the "BTU" and other energy unit equivalents.
Historically we have already adjusted this value to fit our current physical model.

By todays standard mathematical representation of "what is", we have already exceeded what was once though to be 100%.

And by tomorrows standards (there is still a debate over which theory to accept),
We will be able to exceed what we consider to be "100%" today.

This seems like a trivial point.
Because if we used to have 10% of what is now considered to be 30% of the total.
This 10% was really only 3%

What then now, when we have systems that are so efficient as to quote %'s above 75-80. (modest)

Let us assume that our current "100%" is only 30% if the next physical model of the universe.

Then our system that is 80% efficient, is really only 24% of the newly assumed "total energy" value.
hmm... so is that in the generation process or the consumption?  I thought we already agreed these were equivalent.

I might be missing something, but to me this seems to cause a bit of an "issue".

If we had what we thought was 10% efficient, and we exceed ten times that amount, does not that violate thermodynamics? - They simply tell us, no, because the "total energy" is much greater than we once thought.

take a motor made of wrought-iron, from the early days.
compared to a generator of today's standards.
the motor has extremely high losses. most of your total energy is dissipated as heat.
the generator on the other hand can convert 80% of the motors output into electrical energy.
so, you lose 97% of your motive force, and another 20% of what's left from the generator conversion.

flip this around.
you have a motor converting 80% of your motive force into rotational power, and a highly inefficient generator that converts 3% of this 80 into electrical power.

so, we see by simply taking an "old motor" and connecting it to a "new generator"., or vice versa
we increase our losses, compared to a modern day moto-gen pair.

But when we consider what we thought to be the "total" value of our motive force that started this cycle,
what we find is that by including the second vector we are able to define rotational energy quantitatively in the direction of rotation.
Meaning, simply, that what we thought we were "pushing" in a straight line, energetically speaking ---
We can now do with the square root of that energy, by doing so in two vectors.
(looking at rotation axially parallel, this would be vertical, and horizontal)

There was a shift in our theory, during the period of enlightenment that brought forth the industrial revolution.
we change we way we look at things, from a bird's eye view, to a side view.
We can not only cause rotation from a horizontal impulse, we can direct that same impulse in the vertical vector, out of phase to the correct degree, and the result is E = E^2. <- this is not equivalent!!!!!!!
Now days we consider this new value to be the "real" E. And we use this in everything we currently do.

Let's look at this from the perspective of Heat energy.
We found that by including the secondary dimensional vector, we can heat a unit of water by an exponential amount by utilizing the outer surface area of the container, when the heat input remains the same.
(convection).
This was revolutionary, and redefined what we consider to be the unit of energy required to do so.


Now, we are approaching a shift to a more distance perspective, where we take into consideration, the forces
that are parallel to the axis of rotation, in terms of how they affect said rotation.

I am using circular rotation in my example here, because when you look at heat, I can't speak that situation in words...

the historical adaptation went from a linear heat transfer to a square area approach.
our current model examines the 3rd dimension as the absolute value of a half-multiple of the squared (area) value.
an actual 3rd dimensional approach includes a third exponential factor (cubic) (and an imaginary value)
and quite frankly, we aren't there yet in terms of scientific theory.
Though we know the necessity exists, there are discrepancies in the outcomes of any yet proposed mathematical approach. (OU?)

And who is to say that there are not 4th dimensional aspects to that which is around us?
as the scope of our knowledge increase, so does the "total energy" available to us.
Of this we cannot deny.

[sm0ky2]

I forgot to conclude my proposition....
(sorry, sometimes by brainfarts get ahead of myself!)

With respect to the QuMoGen:

There are axially parallel vibrations that (could possibly?) add 3rd dimensional forces that are not accounted for by any current model.

[sm0ky2]

Dog-One, matter and energy are interchangeable.
"this process could be reversed to extract real known power from some unknown source?" you better have some very good evidence.

Suppose I were to create a device like was suggested.

That produces more losses than could be accounted for by the system.
But were evident by the lack of energy output from said system.

There are two conclusions to be had:
either 1) The system lost energy in some unknown form
or 2) the system was storing energy in some unknown form

and by unknown I mean yet to be discovered form of energy transfer, be through some form of atomic, electric, or magnetic radiation, or unpolarized charge potential, or a temperature lowering effect that could be deduced as the inverse of "heat", or some other unimaginable effect of our reality.

What conclusions would you to be had of such a device??