OverUnity Question

[Scorpile]

G'day Linda and all,

As usual you have hit the nail right on the head darling. This is the very thing that has fooled so many with the Milkovic device. Everybody looks at how little power goes in and how much goes out totally ignoring that the peak power output is only for a very short time.

That is why no-one, including Milkovic, has been able to create a self runner in spite of the fact that one side shows ten times the power than the other. Multiply both sides by time as appropriate for each side and all you get is equilibrium minus friction and drag.

Pity many researchers do not bother to learn elementary physics because they erroneously believe that ALL of physics is wrong and has to be re-written.

No doubt contemporary physics is full of holes and unknowns and further discoveries will be made, some of them revolutionary. I seriously doubt though that this will be in the area of elementary mechanics or basic stable data.

Hans von Lieven

Imagine Albert Einstein talking with Isaac Newton and telling him... "your gravity theory is wrong... it's just a fold in space time". LOL

[Feynman]

@Koen

And your puppy food comes free of charge as well? 

As I understand things, you have to pay for the puppy food the first time.  Then (if you do things right)  the food tray gets refilled from the active environment via the mysteries of QED. I think there must be millions of ways to do this. Examples might be Bedini motor, TPU, Sweet VTA, etc. I think many of the historical free energy devices are operating using variations on this theme, regardless of whether the source is vacuum energy or earth's magnetic energy, which seem to be the two most popular theories.  I think it is possible both are viable sources.

"it's about energy contained in ONE photon and the ionisation potential (for ONE electron) of the irradiated material, and the ratio between those plus the resistance of the material determines the output of a solar cell."

Thank you for the clarification. As you may have noticed, I do not know much about solar cells.

Yes, well, although the "fuel supply" is free and unlimited, the "engine"
itself is not, and actually quite expensive to make. ("fuel"=light, "engine"=cell, obviously)
So it comes down to how much energy does it take to gather and refine the materials, and to machine them into a solar cell, and how long does a cell like that work"

This is an excellent point.. it reminds me of the whole efficiency of production.  In Saudi Arabia, 1 barrel of oil in gives you something like 20 out.  In Canada's viscous tar sands, 1 barrel of oil in gives you only 2 out (because you must crack the tar).  In the same way, if a badly constructed Bedini motor costs 100kJ to make, but will break after 90kJ of net output you are losing energy.   The economics do matter.

"That depends on how efficiently you can collect that energy. I don't think you can simply say that 90% of all energy in any open system can be collected just like that."

I don't think so either.  However, I think the environmental energy will be so high you only need to capture a fraction of it. The non-diverging Heaviside component is orders of magnitude greater than the converging term.  So 90% losses is acceptable if you are talking E-amplication that runs into powers of 10  (via magnetic resonance, active vacuum, whatever the mechanism is, assuming the source is EM in type and originates from the non-diverging Maxwell-Heaviside component).

"Erm... You're leaving out a lot of terms like "alleged", "supposed", "possible", etc.
Dark energy is nothing more than a hypothesis that could possibly account for the assumed expansion of the universe."

This is correct... but dark energy is the latest establishment theory regarding the accelerating universe expansion observation.    My personal suspicion is dark energy, cold energy, and Dirac negative energy are the same thing.

But you are right, this particular claim has no present foundation in experiment (besides indirect observation of distant stars).

[z.monkey]

I know, as I am someone who has four dogs, three of them are rescue dogs, that they are definitely not free.  You have immunizations, food, grooming, and you gotta pick up lots of poop, if they don't have any problems.  If they do have problems then first you have to diagnose the problems.  This may require hospitalization and even surgery.  Then you have to buy their medicine, perhaps even for the rest of their life.  These venerable and sensitive creatures require constant attention and will suffer if you cannot care for them fully.  Then, inevitably they get older and require other types of special attention.  I have one dog that the orthodox veterinarian said could not be saved.  We were not going to give up on him.  We found this new alternative medicine veterinarian who not only saved his life but he is happier and more full of life than ever before.  She saved his life with a mix of glandular therapy and Chinese herbal medicine.  Oh, did I forget the license to own dogs, yeah, that is required by the state now.  You have to hold a license to own domesticated animals.  Yeah, definitely not free...

Dog is an anagram for God.

Dogs are far more hospitable than most humans I know.

Dogs don't give a crap about physics...

[Koen1]

Lol E-amplification?
someone's been reading Bearden?

What I find a bit odd about Beardens book(s), is
that he has this huge story about broken symmetry
and "Dirac sea holes", and how that happens in the
Bedini motor/chargers, but...
while Bearden at some point very clearly describes
how a high voltage pulse should "break the symmetry
of the local vacuum" and generate a successive
"negative energy" or "dirac sea hole" current in the
same conductor which can be used or stored in a
capacitor, and how this would produce real electrons
available to the circuit,
the Bedini devices always use batteries... and there
are stories of the batteries going flat, and having to be
recharged for several times the normal charge time,
and it has been said this is due to "deep cycling" of
the batteries...
Now I don't see why, if Beardens claimed breaking of
symmetry and subsequent "release" of "dirac sea holes"
is so relatively simple, and if you can simply use a capacitor
to turn this "dirac sea hole current" into electrical current,
Bedini would not have used a "simple" pulsed capacitor
array... If it is that simple, an oscillating circuit, the "bedini"
wiring and optocoupling, and a bunch of capacitors should
suffice to produce free electrical output, without need for
the entire rotor arrangement and without batteries that
may or may not go extremely dead...

Hmm.... that turned into a rant about Beardens story...
... 
Oh well, see what you make of it hey

as for the LHC, that's because they've got everything riding on the Higgs boson,
isn't it? They're hoping to finally detect that so far still hypothetical particle,
because that could finally give us a quantumphyiscal grip on mass.
Which would hopefully enable deeper insight into the qm of mass and matter,
and get us one step closer to the holy "grand unified theory".
Or at least, that's why I thought they were building it...

Also, is the entire point of the search for a "g.u.t." not to finally be able
to bridge the gap between the quantumphysical and the macrophysical
"laws of nature"? To figure out why exactly it is, that certain things in our
macroscopic world seem to work exactly according to classical physics,
while the quantum world shows completely different and often seemingly
"unnatural" behaviour?
... you seem to imply that quantumphysical effects somehow change the
world as it is and has been described... but the quantum effects have always
been there, and the apparent discrepancy between the macro and quantum world
has also always been there... the macro world we live in has not suddenly
changed since we figured out quantum theory...
But I may just be missing your point a bit
Lol then again I seem to have lost my own point as well

[z.monkey]

You cannot feign knowledge,
either you know, or you look like a dumb ass.

Some famous dude said that, don't know who...

Might have been Red Foreman...