"Free energy" and "Overunity" We need a definition.

[WilbyInebriated]

ETA: Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!

don't be asinine...   no human 'payed' for the sun... 

[audiomaker]

Well, I think you are right in some places and you are wrong in others. I'm not going to be able to change 35 years of your thinking, but here is the root of the problem as I see it from your description:

Work, in physics, is force times distance....  <snip>

Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.

So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.

The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.

As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards

[TinselKoala]

Well, I agree with the standard definition of "work" in physics being as you state.

However, in the context of OU discussions, consider work against a stationary object. and examine the problem backwards...

If the bottom ring magnet is an electromagnet being energized by a bicycle generator, then it is requiring "work" in the classic sense to produce a force.   One would have to provide "work" for as long as the upper magnet were to be suspended.   It would require 33 years of "work" to suspend that magnet for (you guessed it) 33 years.

If permanent magnets were electromagnets all kinds of things would be different. Yes, it takes work to sustain a magnetic field in an electromagnet, unless you are using superconductors, in which case it takes work to keep them cold. Work is not measured in "years"..... the "work/year" would be a measure of POWER like the Watt (which is a Joule of work or energy PER second) and yes,  the electric company will bill you for the total energy in watt-seconds (tiny chunks of kW-H) or ..... Joules.



So indeed the neither the electro, nor the permanent magnet are doing any "work" in the physics sense while the upper magnet floats, but one is requiring a significant amount of "work" to produce the external energy to create the force, while the other is relying on it's nature state.
[/qute] So? You aren't going to be able to do _work_ against the gravitational field of force, in order to levitate the other magnet up to a stable non-moving position unless you input some _energy_.... equivalent to work..... to the system to do it. And guess what: the input energy, input at a rate measured in Watts, will determine how fast your levitated part rises and how high.

The point was leading more to the availability and source of the energy.   Perhaps one should look at it as "Thrust" X "Time" / Energy.

Thrust is a "force" measured in newtons, times seconds/Joules... hmm.  And a Joule is a Watt-second..... so your expression reduces to (Newtons x seconds)/(Watts x seconds) = Newtons/Watts ..... Newtons per Watt? What you are describing seems to be something like Specific Impulse but not quite. Newtons per Watt? That's some kind of efficiency figure I think.
(Edited... the algebra is confusing this early in the morning....)

As to your quote: "Free energy.... is energy that somebody else has to pay for !!"...

Yes, of course.  Or I would suggest "...is energy that something else has to supply"

In the definition of "OverUnity", what has be to determined is if the term refers to the overunity of energy, or the overunity of the cost.  One of those is possible.

My formula for this definition would be:  "Free Energy is energy remaining from an over unity of cost".

Regards

A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.

[WilbyInebriated]

A friend of mine holds a patent, granted, on the Sun. Everyone who uses solar energy owes him royalties, but he has agreed not to pursue it. True story.

liar.

[Pirate88179]

I think the real question is:  Is something doing work when it reaches a state of equalibrium?   I think not.  When the magnetic field that opposes gravity reaches such a state, when in balance with the forces, then no work is being done.  As TK said, there needs to be distance involved.  Even if one could think up different cases where this might not be true,  when forces are in balance, I do not see how "work" is being done.

As stated earlier, then my kitchen table would be equal to 10,000 pounds of force since it has been holding up a bunch of stuff against gravity for many years.

I began this topic for another reason altogether.  But, all discussion is good as we can learn from it.

Bill