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

[The Observer]

There is no such thing as "free energy".
The only thing "free" would be that we don't pay money to use it.
Money has nothing to do with energy.

There is no overunity.
It is a nonsensical term created by those who want you to pay them for energy.

There are however, Unrecognized Sources of Energy (USE), and that is the point of this forum.

I contend two USEs are

1. The phenomenon of Resonance.
For example ... two similar tuning forks ring louder and longer than 1 when only 1 is struck.
or... an Acoustic Guitar is 1000 times louder than and Electric Guitar, same strings  same strum.

2. The phenomenon of Magnetic Permeability in Ferromagnetic Materials.
For example... a coil with an Iron core produces a Magnetic Field 5,000 times greater than just the coil for any given current. This is because the Iron has previously randomly oriented magnetic dipoles that line up with the magnetic field of the coil and ADD to the field of the coil.

Best Regards,
                     The Observer

[audiomaker]

<snip>

However, the proverbial rock on the side of a mountain HAS no energy not inherent to its mass UNTIL it moves. That is not "potential" anything. That is a LACK of energy. Gravity is constantly performing work upon the rock and the mountain both, but until the rock starts to move it has no energy transferred to itself from gravity. Once the rock starts to move it gains energy from the acceleration placed upon it.


The rock is not the same as the "cocked spring" concept, as the spring itself contains energy when cocked and is constantly exerting measurable force. Otherwise the spring when "un-cocked" contains no energy in the same manner as the stationary rock.


Consider two identical tables. One has nothing upon it, the other has a thousand pounds of lead stacked on it. Which will collapse sooner? The lead itself is doing no work and has no energy, but gravity accelerating the lead and the table resisting the acceleration are and do. The lead is actually resisting a change in it's present motionlessness due to inertia (objects at rest tend to stay at rest).


If no kinetic energy is being exchanged in the system, then why would the table with lead structurally fail before the identical table with no lead?


It is not anyones fault here if you find yourself saying something to the effect of "What the.....(bleep)?"


These concepts may cause everyone to consider the issue a little deeper. Too see just how deep the problem with definitions actually is in physics, examine this link: Specifically the entries on Energy, and Energy (take 2).,


http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/glossary.htm


See if you can find the errors, such as when he derides others for their misuse of the concept, then himself does exactly what he accuses them of. There are numerous logical flaws in these two entries.


Paul Andrulis

I can promise you that you're not the only one not thrilled with the definitions or explanations of "potential energy".  As I stated far above, I was racking my head on this one at age 12.

The fault for a clear picture is likely due to the sometimes vague interpretations of energy and force.  Our high school physics teachers messed with our little heads making examples of that boulder on the hillside where it seemed that boulder "stored" the energy involved in pushing it up there.  Then you push it a little further onto a plateau and it all goes to hell.   Perhaps it is demonstrating Newton's 3rd law in relation to "work".  Simply, the boulder will provide the same amount of energy on it's return path as was required to put it in a place of "potential".  That potential is of course related to it's mass.

It's truly an awful example once one starts to push that boulder on a level surface because in basic physics courses, one's mind tends to equate "potential energy" as "stored energy", so pushing the boulder 10' on a flat surface should mean that it has now stored that energy and it's potential wishes it to return...ack!  As you state, the boulder's "potential" energy is just that... the potential to produce the same degree of energy that would have been required to put in there.  "Stored"?  Not in this case.  A tree can grow on a mountain top over 100 years, fall, and roll down the hill without ever having energy applied to it to get it up that hill.  Is that free energy because it is "over unity"?  The plot thickens.  No, the tree has succumbed to the "Thrust" of a radiant energy and given a nice long slope will develop a mass and velocity that equates to energy far beyond anything the tree itself could have stored.  The pile of toothpicks and the demolished town far below are evidence of this.

The tree fell into a "stream" of energy.  In fact, not unlike an actual stream of water.  I'll call it a "River" instead since "stream" starts to get back into physics nomenclature.  The tree falls into the river and during it's path can produce enormous destructive force on it's path well beyond that of any force inherent to the tree itself.

Consider... even IF you pushed that tree all the way up that mountain, and even IF it stored that energy, or even IF the tree now had "potential", as soon as it falls into that river it has the force and energy not only of itself, but of the river (err...stream) that it is now engulfed in, and now is part of the "work" that river is doing.

Now consider this in the context of gravity, magnetic fields, non magnetically charged iron, and the one that always gets left out....TIME.

So why does this matter?  Well, let's look at the spring again.  It has been suggested that the force levitating the disc magnet in my display is "potential energy".   Another look and it is "stored energy", and with a third glance, it could be "radiant energy"  In fact, it might be all 3.

While we could go into countless experiments to prove any of those concepts, one thing does seem to resound...

... that people tend to settle in their heads on a vision of how it works and base their determinations on it.

Just like using the word "work", you end up with some confusion as to what the author is presenting, and that confusion is represented as logical counter arguments instead of agreements.

My examination as a young lad was that the levitation of the magnets was kinetic, had thrust due to repulsion, and was doing "work".

It helps to have an understanding that no mass is actually "solid" and that all matter is magnetic.   In my head, "thrust" exists between all atomic particles in the vast spaces between them.  "Chaos" is the natural state (else we end up with galactic-ally enormous balls of the elements in the periodic table), and the alignment of the particles in magnets is "anti-natural" and "anti-chaotic", which leads to unequalized "thrust" in the spaces between matter contained in that alignment.  I will go into this at a later date, but those are my theories.

Anyway...

Regards

[audiomaker]

Oh... one more thing...

I am using the word (and concept) of "Thrust" in place of attraction and repulsion.

There is a reason for this.

Stack two bowling ball one on top of the other.   These two objects are exhibiting both attraction and repulsion at the same time.

I use the word "Thrust" to describe repulsion (or anti-repulsion) as repulsion and attraction outside of the matter's own atomic space.

Make sense?

[pauldude000]

Actually it makes quite a bit of sense. Thinking too deeply engenders scientific causality.... those who consider themselves the defenders of the faith tend to take notice and act.... just 'cause. 


Here I was starting to wonder whether I was the only Quack out there! 


Energy was the big one for me, due to the equivalency principle. Either the numerous energy formula are wrong, or energy usage is non-equivalent in meaning. Specifically E is supposedly not equivalent to E.


A quick example.


E=mc^2 (based upon and derived from various electromagnetic formula)


E=hf (An electromagnetic formula)


Does that mean then, considering that both are derived from the same electromagnetic conceptual source that it could be stated:


E^2 = mc^2  hf  or equivalently mc^2 = hf ? 


This one tends to mess with heads. All sorts of logical flags are thrown.


You CAN'T do that! (Why?)
That is not right, one is kinetic mass energy! (Then why is it based off of electromagnetic formula? Explain why c is even in the equation please?)


I have had a ton of fun with this logical mess.


Technically, the arguments against fall flat and the concepts are equivalent and therefore formulaically transposable. What makes the concept dangerous to the status quo is that it logically assigns real mass to electromagnetism, which explains the supposedly "apparent" mass of the photon. This should not be a surprise, considering that Quantum Mechanics has already discovered that the smallest building blocks are discrete packets or quanta of electromagnetic energy. (Note: far too small to be photons. A photon is larger than an electron.)


Like you said, there is nothing solid in this electromagnetic universe. Apparent solidity is illusory.


Paul Andrulis

[audiomaker]

Here I was starting to wonder whether I was the only Quack out there! 


Paul Andrulis

That's one of the nicest things anyone's said to me in years!

A few nights ago I was considering what some call "Faraday's Paradox" of why (at least in most experiments) that the field between two magnets does not rotate when the magnets rotate (mostly monopolar examples). 

The answer struck me... with no evidence, and that answer was what led me to sign on to this board.

The answer (for me) was "Magnetic fields don't actually exist".  I believe that there is likely enormous evidence to the contrary, but for some reason it feels right (even though it may be wrong).

The very short concept is that the alignment of the particles in the mass of our magnets doesn't create a field at all, but exposes to a larger degree a layer of space that is ever-present with or without the magnets.  This layer of space interacts with matter from our space in such a way that that the attributes of what we call a "magnetic field" are observed from our chairs.

I guess one could think of it as pulling open a set of curtains and looking outside.  Moving the curtains around changes what we perceive to see, and our exposure, but doesn't change what is actually going on out there.  The magnets are in our space.  The "Field" exists in another space (or simply IS another space).  While there are physical effects of our matter (including electrons) when interacting with that other space (Possibles: attraction, repulsion, charge changes, energy streams...etc), rotating the magnets in our space does not produce an effect "out there", and the "field" in our space is illusory.

While this may or may not be true, it would explain Faraday's paradox.

The bearing on this discussion is that now...for me... there is yet a whole other way to conceive what we call a "Magnetic Field".  In fact, I am having a hard time even calling it a magnetic field while my brain churns away at the "whys" and "what then's" of that concept.

One can imagine that defending that a "magnetic field" is kinetic takes a strange turn when one ponders that a "magnetic field" might not even exist, and that other factors might be responsible for the behaviors we currently associate with these objects.

We don't need to debate if the effects exist.  They do.  We can call it a "Magnetic Field", a "Dilution of mass", an "increased permeability of space fabric", or a "banana".  It doesn't matter.
... but how would it change one's views if we were looking at a "opening" to there instead of a "field" in front of us?

(sigh)
I'll have to get back to you on all of this

Regards