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

[captainpecan]

I actually started a post real similar to this one myself before I found this one. I am truely amazed at the many different views of what OU/FE actually means. I've seen some very good views in this thread, and some really bad ones too.

First off. As long as you think overunity is the same thing as free energy, you will never get it. It's impossible to ever understand the truth, if you continue to assume the two terms mean the same thing, your making the exact same mistake as the physicists who continue to assume they know what they are talking about.

It's very simple, the laws of physics are sound. Most people just dont really have a clue what they really mean. The laws actually prove that a free energy device is in fact not only possible, they are everywhere, in different forms.

Overunity is impossible. I agree. But free energy is very possible. "Energy cannot be created or destroyed." So it's obviouse, this law is correct. It not only means overunity is impossible, it also means underunity is also impossible. Everything is EXACTLY UNITY!

Free energy DOES NOT mean overunity. Free energy also does not have anything to do with financially free. Free energy simply means, AVAILABLE energy. That's it. It's very simple. A battery is a free energy device. Every bit of energy stored in that battery is free energy. Energy that is available for use. Run out of free energy, than there is no more energy available to use immediately, and you have a dead battery. Now the battery has potential energy. It can potentially hold more free energy!

It's not that complicated guys. Put a wheel in the water, hook it to a generator, and you have a free energy device. There was available energy, in the form of kinetic energy, that you convert to electrical energy! A hydroelectric generator is born!

Guys, stop trying to break the laws. Start understanding them instead. Use them to point you toward the available "free" energy, that you can convert to electrical energy. Very simply put, when you know what free energy is, it's a hell of a lot easier to harness and use. There is so much free energy all around you. Learn to CAUSE other forms of energy to enter the equation, and convert THAT to electrical energy.

Believe me, it is possible. I have done it, and I will release how I did it real soon. I'm working on protecting my invention first. Just study all the laws, finally understand them, stop trying to break them, use them to your advantage, stop trying to create energy, and start converting what's already here!

[FunkyJive]

PYRODIN123321 wrote:

....guess once you discover overunity its not overunity anymore its an alternative energy source that you don't have a name for and is not explained by known physics..(stating the obvious i guess)

I believe that this statement eludes to the truth, where if traditional science remains constrained by traditional beliefs, then a world of possibilities may be overlooked. I find it quite incredible that the most eminent scientists and mathematicians have worked together to build the Halon Collider at a cost of something like five-and-a-half billion dollars, in attempting to recreate conditions in support of the big-bang theory, yet traditional science cannot explain the mere fundamentals like gravity, light, magnetism (etc). I therefore believe that the "Big Bang" bit is something of a smokescreen, with other unstated motives and objectives behind the project.

I do subscribe to conservation of energy principles, though it is clearly necessary to consider all potential sources of energy that might be realised from the "Ether", or "Vacuum Space". If you accept this possibility, as (for example) the very medium that transfers photon (light) energy and dictates the speed of light (just as the density of air or water dictate the speed of sound), then missing pieces to the puzzles start to fit.

Regarding "Free Energy", such a medium would doubtless convey all sorts of "wave" energy (such as electromagnetic solar waves developed from the spinning nucleus of the sun), but tapping it would require channelling it...

Consider a tornado, where the spin causes the surrounding air to get sucked in and directed upwards through its centre. Here the energy that induces rotation comes from unstable air and wind shear, inducing a twist in the rising column of air. Therefore, the wind energies that are absorbed by the tornado are focused upwards through the central column. The pressure differential between the centre of the tornado and the surrounding air could theoretically (if not practically) be tapped and converted to useable forms.

Now imagine a bizarre scenario where a tornado was operating and a huge hypothetical fan were placed alongside, directing air at the tornado. The fan would be sucking air from its surroundings and contributing to the forces about and contained within the centre of the tornado.

Without the tornado the air pressure from the fan would simply dissipate into the surrounding air, with the available energy generally reducing by the square of the distance. HOWEVER, as the tornado is absorbing the surrounding air and channelling it up through its central column, then I believe it is reasonable to expect that if one were capturing the energy focused in the central column then a significant increase would be observed due to additional channelling of the pre-pressurised air contributed by that hypothetical fan.

It is my belief that the apparent over-unity mistakenly claimed by non-charlatans (assuming they exist  ), from experiments fundamentally based upon the back-EMF developed in electromagnetic coils, is probably analogous to the tornado example. I believe that whatever apparatus is used must first develop an essential spin in the EM field, so that absorption and focussing of energy will take place along the magnetic axis - allowing it to be tapped off in a more conventional manner.

Create a simple electromagnet, energise it, remove the current, and the back-EMF would simply be equivalent to the input energy minus losses (i.e. not free energy). However, create an electromagnetic vortex (a spinning field, much like that tornado) and then remove the energising current, and I believe that a significant increase in output (above the input energy) could well be realised from channeled energy conveyed in vacuum-space. From my own experiments investigating the feasibility of pure electromagnetic levitation and propulsion systems, I have distinctly observed such effects myself which could add weight to this theory.

This would not in any way contravene established conservation of energy laws, but would simply be an absorption and channelling of energy conveyed in vacuum-space so that it could be realised in the physical domain. Perhaps think of it in a loosely-similar way to electrical generators harnessing power from wave motion at sea.

Considering the Bedini/Bearden motor and possible electromagnet energy sources such as the sun and light, then might this explain the reported reduction in energy output in a darkened room, or at night? 


All the best,

FunkyJive.

[EELRIJUE]

Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....
I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.  My intent is convince you why that's OK!

Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid. 

More energy can never be extracted from a system than was input.  True statement.  But conventional thinking (and language) has twisted this into "you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in."  See the difference?  The flawed definition of "system" in the second statement assumes only one source of input energy- MAN.  It is this assumption that makes it so easy for conventional thinkers to categorically oppose the notion of free energy.  To them I pose this example:

So then, I offer this piece of advice to readers- abandon the notion of free energy from the ether which will outlive the human race.  First of all, science says it's impossible.  Second, WHAT'S THE POINT if near-unity is just as good? 
A 99.99% efficient device that last 500 years would be just fine for us mortals, and fits just fine with conventional physical laws.  The trick is not necessarily in finding new sources of potential energy, new rocks on cliffs.  The key is to figure out easier ways of pushing them off...

This is not intended as dissuasion, just a minor paradigm shift...

First of all the laws of physics ARE NOT complete nor are the wholly valid. Not even close. Theya re missing one MAJOR piece of the puzzle and it belongs to people like Hal Putoff.

Secondly, the ZPE field is high in frequency. High frequency = high power locked away in cycles. This is old news.

People always get confused with the idea of getting more power out than you put in. If you resonate to the ZPE you will get OU results.  No matter what in any attempt or any construct which makes use of the ZPE field, you WILL get OU gain. Anything outside of the the ZPE and you 'might' get 99.999 efficiency or a unity of '1'.

When the Human Race realizes the vast potential in the ZPE, OU talk will be common and accepted worldwide as normal. If anyone thinks CERN's higg's boson attempt is great, the ZPE is greater in what it can do RIGHT NOW at this very moment.

The future of humankind is to make use of this energy field, regardless of those who wish to shoot themselves in the foot and persuade others into the school of deception. Isn't this website about 'overunity' or not?

[FunkyJive]

Gentlemen... We concur.

As for the scientist constrained by traditional beliefs, ignoring the most fundamental questions and explaining light in superficial "duality" terms, and forcefully repeating the doctrines of their peers and masters without further investigation on their part, then proponents of traditional science are perpetrating little more than a religious faith.

Fortunately we have a world of radicals, and probability would suggest that some will achieve success in promoting inventions and ideas founded on a more complete science, though with a resulting independence from fossil fuels I can guarantee with absolute certainty that we're in for a long and dirty battle.


All the best,

FunkyJive

[atomicX]

What? payroll to debunk energy?  Where do I put application in for that?  I can create hundreds of theory for free energy and debunk it myself.  OVERUNITY! lol

I heard something about E=mc^2.  I'll take 1/2mc^2 for alittle cheaper.  I think that's enough for me.  Me no like nuclear.

Esotericman,
I don't see you got anything hostile against the free energy.  You know what most professors scare of?  Godel's paradox.  However, for short stuffs like us, we're just base on what we see daily.  Anyway, Godel said no system of description will be complete.  So science is therefore, not complete.  You can't use physics class and what you learn in physics to prove itself.  If 1+1=2 , then there is no way in heaven 1+1=3.  You see?  People knows there is something wrong with the 1st law, so they just trying to find a new model that works.  That model has to describe both mainstream and new phenomena.  Then again, Godel said it still won't be complete.  This time it's ok because we just solved the energy crisis.   

And don't take things for granted.  I have an appointment with my professor next week to discuss the law of angular momentum conservation vs. Coriolis acceleration.  This going to be good.