Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

[Esotericman]

It is absolutely a question of semantics.  What you call the Aether, I call Stored Potential Energy In the Universe.
And yes, Einstein had plenty to say about the Aether!  In fact, it is expressed in his General Theory of Relativity as the universal constant!  Of course, we know today that this constant existed only to force his equations to model a steady-state universe, which we know by observation is simply not the case.

I see that many on this site seem determined to reject the laws of physics simply for the sake of rejecting them.  You observe data which can be described by conventional laws, yet choose to invent other ways of explaining them!  Well, you can call a tail a leg all you want, but that doesn't mean a horse has 5 legs.

I signed on to this site assuming the use of the term OverUnity (which is, as I mentioned, defined by Thermodynamics) meant that people here were willing to be scientific.  Instead I am criticized as being "religiously" devoted to conservation of energy by some who, despite a complete lack of evidence, believes the opposite!  And I'm being religious?!  There is nothing scientific about blind faith!

So maybe I do need to start a new website after all...  where people conduct research into devices which seem to do the impossible, on a quest to quell the world's energy appetite.  Hmm... thought there was one already...

[Moab]

>Moab picks up marble from Gabbys table, and bounces it off Gabby's forhead>
>They both ponder how meny million years that potential energy was stored in the imagened marble that caused the lump on the Overunity Unit known by the photons in an imagened mirror on Gabby's forehead>

<Moab rubs chin,, scratches head>

<Gabby rubbs forehead yelling obcenities at Moab>

<both have a snickers bar and a cup of joe and call it a day>  The end. sorry bout that lump there G.

[Grumpy]

OU is a matter of perspective.

The universe is perpetual, the energy in it can not be created or destroyed, but it can be "converted".

When you realize that we have tunnel-vision in respect to electricity and magnetism (and pretty much everthing else) and that there is more to it than that which we see and measure, then the possiblilty of converting another form of energy into the form we want is pretty damn possible.

[gaby de wilde]

My purpose in being here is to try and make free energy arguments a little less rediculous- that is, less likely to be utterly ridiculed by the scientific community at large... 

How exactly are you helping again?

oh, I thought it was okay for me to behave silly in this topic because I'm a free energy researcher.

Cant have it both ways you know..

[FunkyJive]

Hello all.

I'm transferring my comments from another less-appropriate forum, so here's my 2c as I do enjoy adult debate about this subject in particular...

In response to another quote elsewhere:

Do you think that it is possible that COE may be violated?

Only if one were to consider CoE in the conventional sense, but what of the laws governing atomic particles and electrons orbiting nuclei in perpetuity.

I believe that the analogy of a spinning skater with arms outstretched or drawn in to spin faster is groundless from the point of energy creation. Slower rotational speed with outstretched arms would possess greater rotational torque, with torque as the trade-off for speed when the skater drew in their arms. However, the actual kinetic energy (i.e. rotational inertia) contained in both cases would be exactly the same. CoE exists even should the skater repeatedly raise and lower their arms. No energy could be tapped off - other than an energy surplus from the action of raising and lowering the arms !

Heating a material will create greater excitation of atoms such that continued heating beyond a critical point causes molecular bonds to break apart and re-form with other elements to create different materials (such as when you cook food or burn paper for example), though a mildly-heated metal sample that does not alter its molecular composition will then liberate latent heat as atomic excitation reduces to a level commensurate with the ambient temperature once the heat is removed. Again, we have neither created or destroyed energy.

OK, so in this case, inducing a change in sub-atomic charged particle excitation requires energy for the heat to be "absorbed", for which there is a counter reaction when the heat is removed as the charged particles settle back and excitation reduces to a former level. This is the conventional science that is observable at the macro level.

But what about those perpetually moving charged particles in all matter. Are they absorbing conventional energy in doing so, even when proportional to temperature? The answer is no, as at macro level it is not conventionally possible to generate energy and sustain momentum from a substance held at a constant temperature and pressure as a differential would be called for. It may be argued that there are aspects of zero friction at atomic level, but if this were the case then why does a material then liberate its latent heat once the heat source is removed, as you would then expect the atomic excitation gained from heat to always be absorbed and held within the material - with no frictional component to cause the opposite effect and liberate heat in return?

OK, so what about thermo-couples (two dissimilar metals in electrical contact which liberate a voltage in response to heat)? Here a tiny voltage is produced at albeit miniscule current, though current is nevertheless available with the thermocouple sustained at constant temperature. So where is the energy coming from? Well reciprocation would suggest that attempting to draw current from a thermocouple would result in the sensor cooling, thereby drawing heat energy from the surrounding air in such circumstances (this eludes to the "Peltier" effect somewhat) - but only in the event of applied load to its output. Overlooking this possible event in deliberations could lead anyone into believing that energy was being created from nothing - the sort of thing that can catch an eager experimenter out after premature cries of "Eureka !!!"     

However, magnetic fields are a somewhat different matter - although inseparably related to the above. You can consider voltage, current, heat (etc), relating to energy where we observe such effects at macro level from what actually originates at micro (atomic) level. But here's the rub... Just what exactly is the "force" that yields attraction or repulsion forces upon sub-atomic particles? Can proponents of the CoE rules explain this in every detail so that this can be included in all deliberations to prove or disprove the possibility of over-unity in the conventional sense? This is not explained by conventional particle physics (other than the resulting effects of attraction and repulsion) - but the effects are inarguable and ever-present in all matter throughout the known universe, no matter how convenient it is to overlook it in conventional science.

Now could it be that it is actually possible to tap into the arguable perpetuity of sub-atomic moving masses (in other words, themselves a perpetually moving mass) and translating what is apparently limitless energy from a hitherto unknown source to the tangible domain? Until the very force itself that unites all atoms and molecules in the universe is understood at even the most basic fundamental level, then there exists a massive hole in our understanding of it.

As the invisible magnetic field exhibits attractive or repulsive effects with such force, then could the field itself exist as a moving mass in the same way that a tangible object may exert a force on another when in contact? For myself I believe this holds water as a theory, and constant particle motion would explain the polarised property of the magnetic field.

Could this be the key to "OU" experimentation with either permanent or electro-magnets, with the observations and tantalising questions that are raised from experimentation? Have "Free Energy" devices existed in the past or present, despite suggestions that they have not simply because current science suggests that this is impossible - or the efforts to debunk them? Should we be thinking in terms of "Conservation of Motion" instead of "Conservation of Energy"?

Hmmm... Perhaps   

I accept that I may require correction in my deliberations as I only possess a passive scientific interest, though I am totally convinced that even now it is not possible to argue that conventional energy cannot be yielded by conversion of unconventional universal sources that even today we do not understand. I believe that it is our understanding of CoE pers?, and essential equation variables, that may need some adjustment in the furtherance of time.


FunkyJive