The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[hansvonlieven]

Whoa fellows, hold your horses for a minute.

We are back on the old merry go round again. Have a look at what is happening here in the forum and elsewhere on the scene. Anyone who has watched this for sometime must by now have noticed that everyone, me included, is running around in circles. When it is all said and done there are only a few ideas lurking around that keep cropping up in one form or other over and over again. Things like Bessler wheels, Smots, Bedini and Newman Motors, Tesla coils, Keely resonators, Magnet Motors and so forth in a myriad of adaptations and configurations.

None have led to anything worthwhile so far. How many times have you seen someone coming up with a new super-groundbreaking idea, only to discover the same design has been posted thirty times before and has proved to be a dud.

Now these people are not idiots. It appears to me, there is some kind of mental track that we are all following which runs in a great big circle.

Play with the machines by all means. I would never discourage anyone who is having a go. But lets stop every now and then and question our approach.

Douglas Adams isn?t all that far off with his thinking; he makes fun of it to the point of ridicule, but that does not mean there is no validity to his concept.

We must change our way of thinking about OU or we will still be pissing around with Smots in a hundred years from now. Perhaps that is OK for some, I mean it?s only been around for three hundred years so far, another century might just turn it into something worthwhile.

Hans von Lieven

[scotty1]

G'day all....
Hi Hans...nice to see you back from walkabout.....
All of this is very interesting, and i think that i am the perfect example.
Before my research I knew nothing about electricity, but then i came accross the notes that Ed wrote in his Magnetic Current book.
So I spent the next couple of months going through Ed's notes, following word for word exactly as written and performing all the tests.
I made oversized models, repeated experiments, wound coils for the first time (i didn't even know what magnet wire was  ) over and over again....and I got all the same results as Ed had written.
After a while I could just do all the tests in my head and see every interaction that was occurring, and I could make motors and generators ect..
Now since i did all that and everything worked exactly as Ed wrote it....why would I, as a person who knew nothing else, think that Ed was wrong?
Next I went and learn't all about the standard theories about electricity, and i found something called Lenz's law and after i studied it I noticed that I already knew all about it from my experiments on Ed's notes....then I found out about Orstead and his tests, but again when i studied them i found that i had already done the experiments in Ed's work, but Orstead and Lenz were using a different base theory to describe their work.
6 years later, i now know all about the electron theory, but it is nothing like Ed's theory that i learn't first, and the truth is that i much prefer Ed's theory over the electron theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an example.....Ed writes about radio waves....Here is what he wrote.
Radio waves are not waves; they are North and South pole individual magnets which are coming out
of a transformer of the secondary winding?s coil ends, one-half going up in the air and the other half
in the ground in increasing and decreasing numbers. The numbers are regulated by the transmitting tube, and the speed by voltage. The increasing and decreasing magnet numbers cause the receiver?s antenna to generate a tiny current to start the amplification to reproduce the original broadcast. The magnets are not running up to the ionosphere and down again, but are running horizontally until they are lost. Those magnets which go up to the ionosphere never come back as radio waves to the receiver, they only cause the ionosphere?s magnets to come back to Earth as radar waves. Magnets do not run in the way the radio wave drawings show.....ED.L
---------------------------
Now I will show you what the above actually means.....
From this http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm article we read:
The elevated terminal charged to a high potential induces an equal and opposite charge in the earth.
same as Ed wrote....
and here http://www.rexresearch.com/rogers/1rogers.htm the inventor says.."If 50 units of power are past into the aerial, then what becomes of the equal amount of energy which passes into the ground".
same as ed again
Tesla again...Nothing is more important in the present phase of development of the wireless art than to dispose of the dominating erroneous ideas. With this object I shall advance a few arguments based on my own observations which prove that Hertz waves have little to do with the results obtained even at small distances.

In Fig. 13 a transmitter is shown radiating space waves of considerable frequency. It is generally believed that these waves pass along the earth's surface and thus affect the receivers. I can hardly think of anything more improbable than this "gliding wave" theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_waves and the conception of the "guided wireless" which are contrary to all laws of action and reaction. Why should these disturbances cling to a conductor where they are counteracted by induced currents, when they can propagate in all other directions unimpeded? The fact is that the radiations of the transmitter passing along the earth's surface are soon extinguished, the height of, the inactive zone indicated in the diagram, being some function of the wave length, the bulk of the waves traversing freely the atmosphere. Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.

Back to the second link....To Mr Rogers?s mind it was more reasonable to suppose that the energy liberated at the base of an aerial was propagated through the earth as well as through the ether above, and that an elevated aerial, at great distance, would be actuated by them as effectually as if the waves reached the same point through the ether above; when the waves through the earth reached the base of the aerial the potential of the plate would be raised and lowered and the aerial would accordingly be energized.
AND AGAIN..These ground currents travel with the speed of light and are picked up at the receiving station. The space waves persist for an appreciable distance, which accounts for airplane-to-airplane and airplane-to-earth communication, but it is the belief of Mr Rogers that in such long-distance radio transmission as half-way around the globe (12,000 miles) that it is the ground wave current that does the work, and that the free space wave above the surface of the earth never reaches the station, due to the high resistance of the atmospheric envelope.

One of the Naval experts present mentioned that it had been found that the penetration of the ground wave component increases with an increase in wavelength. This is an important fact and helps to explain the operation of this new radio system, with its aerials buried in the ground. He also mentioned that "Radio to Mars" or other planets would be impossible, if we are to believe in the well-known "Heaviside" ionization layer, surrounding the earth
AND TESLA...This shows that in the transmission from an airplane we are merely working thru a condenser.
The same conclusions will be reached by transmitting and receiving circuits with wires buried underground. In each case the actions carefully investigated will be found to be due to earth currents. Numerous other proofs might be cited which can be easily verified. So for example oscillations of low frequency are ever so much more effective in the transmission which is inconsistent with the prevailing idea. My observations in 1900 and the recent transmissions of signals to very great distances are another emphatic disproval.

The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.
-----------------------------
So now we can see what Ed was really talking about.....
Ed had the same radio theory as Tesla  , and the inventor from the other link.
Ed's notes are about the Heaviside Layer and radio wave (non) reflection...and Earth propagation of power.
Marconi said that a submarine would have to come to the surface to receive a signal....now that's funny.
Ed uses the terms North and South pole individual magnets to define electricity, but all his work is just as good as Tesla's, because it can be shown they both had the same theory.
-----------------------------------------------------
I've expanded Ed's theory to cover lots of things.....but how to show everyone else?
NOW THAT IS THE QUESTION. 
Read about magnetic currents, then you will know what electricity is, what makes it and how it runs in a wire.
That'll do pig
That'll do! 
Scotty

 

[z.monkey]

Howdy Y'all,

Hans is right. were all stuck in the same oval shaped rut.  Trying to prove centuries old theories and all that is getting done is making a deeper rut.  I see the discontinuity of language in these threads.  Different people talking about the same things, but arguing because we use different words to describe the same concepts.

We need standardization.  We need benchmark experiments.  We need a point of reference, a ground. With out some sort of standard to use as starting point we are all just floating voltages that are meaningless to the devices that NEED to be built.

I have experienced exasperation and exhaustion when trying to make a point on this forum, and get attacked from all over the globe.  Everyone has some slightly different way of expressing the same concept and it is fodder for a virtual war.  Anti-productive!

Z.Monkey throws his hands up and stomps off into the kitchen to get coffee....

Blessed Be Brothers...

[Liberty]

Whoa fellows, hold your horses for a minute.

We are back on the old merry go round again. Have a look at what is happening here in the forum and elsewhere on the scene. Anyone who has watched this for sometime must by now have noticed that everyone, me included, is running around in circles. When it is all said and done there are only a few ideas lurking around that keep cropping up in one form or other over and over again. Things like Bessler wheels, Smots, Bedini and Newman Motors, Tesla coils, Keely resonators, Magnet Motors and so forth in a myriad of adaptations and configurations.

None have led to anything worthwhile so far. How many times have you seen someone coming up with a new super-groundbreaking idea, only to discover the same design has been posted thirty times before and has proved to be a dud.

Now these people are not idiots. It appears to me, there is some kind of mental track that we are all following which runs in a great big circle.

Play with the machines by all means. I would never discourage anyone who is having a go. But lets stop every now and then and question our approach.

Douglas Adams isn?t all that far off with his thinking; he makes fun of it to the point of ridicule, but that does not mean there is no validity to his concept.

We must change our way of thinking about OU or we will still be pissing around with Smots in a hundred years from now. Perhaps that is OK for some, I mean it?s only been around for three hundred years so far, another century might just turn it into something worthwhile.

Hans von Lieven

Some ideas are different.  My approach has been to figure out how permanent magnets can work with each other in a motor to allow it to rotate (whether there are moving parts or not and overunity or not), and then create an improved motor design, based on what I have learned,  that will be able to take advantage of this method, being designed to exceed 100% electrical efficiency.  It's seems to be a logical approach that is working for me.

[Koen1]

Hans,

as I have studies philosophy myself, I quite like this turn you've taken.

Linguistics, logic, epistemology, they all come together at some point.
And what you're suggesting is that it is our strong ties to our native languages
and inherent logic that "twist" our world view to fit our "imprinted"
thought patterns, that are directly related to our language structures?
Interesting idea, although it has been considered before, I think.

I personally do not think our language dictates our world view or thought patterns,
although it is true that the more interesting thought constructs do not arise from
pure imitation of linguistic and "intuitive" information structures.

A nice example I'd like to cite is the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis;
Everyone knows the famous example that "eskimos have 20 words for snow",
or the example that "natives in papua-new-guiney do not know the difference between
blue and green", both situations have been used as examples of how other cultures
with other languages also have totally different ways of looking at the world than
we do.
Fortunately such linguistic determinism claims have been proven false;
although it is true that eskimos have a large number of different words for snow,
the connotation of the terminology is not actually different. English speakers also
know different types of snow, they just use a descriptive term and not a seperate word.
And the New-guiney Papua certainly are not colour blind for the colours green and blue,
they see them just as we do, and know there is a difference. It is just that they use
a different name for it in their culture. One can compare that to a language where
the term "water" were used for both river water and rain; the people obviously know
that rain falls from the sky and river water does not, but to them that may not seem
important enough a difference to actually waste a word on it.
This also shows that yes, ways of looking at things are determined to a degree by the
world view in which one is raised, and ways of using language to talk about things is too,
and so is the way these words are used to describe a certain world view.
But that does not mean that we need to break free of our language in order to gain
access to a different world view. We need to transcend linguistic limitations,
get the view straight.
And yes, many people have never realised how much their world view is tied to
their language and the way that language was used to teach them their world view;
for such people it may well help to study a totally different language or even better:
to study logic, in order to gain experience and practise with "re-molding" their
world view and/or linguistic-logical model in order to gain a better understanding of
other ways of looking at things.

Can you perhaps give some examples of the things that you feel may be too strongly
embedded in our linguistic patterns and cause us to perhaps look at certain things
in an unflexible or crooked way?

Thanks.
And great to see you're still around, by the way.
Always knew you hadn't run off or gotten grabbed by the MIBs

Regards,
Koen