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

[massive]

'Free electrons'

The mob have invested and high jacked the "generation" of electricity, even though Free electrons are already there for the picking

[pauldude000]

  Wesley:
   Seams like words don't do justice to describe things like the Aether. Nor can we see it nor measure it, as yet.
   To me the "surrounding ambient", described by Tesla, as differing from man made or sent signals.
    Cosmic frequencies, found everywhere. Cosmic energies, you might say. Including our own Earth Resonant frequency, such as you have mentioned, as well.
   Perhaps we can't prove Free Energy at this time. But, we can learn how to harvest it, for our own use, for now,  without getting killed.

   NickZ

Amazing, isn't it?


People can call it spacetime or they can call it the Aether, or even invisible peanut butter for all I care, lol. The simple fact is that whatever the name, if fully encloses everything (not like a sheet denting), and is full of background noise, which we call energy. Everything from radio waves spanning the entire scale, to electric fields surrounding anything with a magnetic field, or vice-versa. As far as the harvesting, that is more probable than improbable, however it cannot be by definition easy or the sources in question would already be drained. Just as nature hates a vacuum, so does it hate energy imbalance. If the sources were easy to access, then natural processes would have shorted them out long ago. For instance, electrons are unruly little turkeys. They will, individually speaking, jump willy-nilly to any oppositely charged area at the earliest possible time, yet it requires force and planning to get them to obey and dutifully travel down a wire to do your will. Give them one opportunity, and they will take their own route instead. Onomatopoeia aside, their actions denote a singular mind in that they always follow the easiest route to ground, and if allowed to ground (IE equalize potential within an unbalanced system), they will.


There is no reason to assume any other energy source would not follow the same general pattern of behavior. Good for us, because it means natural imbalances can exist, but bad for us in the sense that we have to figure out how to make said energy go from point A to point B down a specified and desired path created by us for a purpose, and convert to a form that we can use.


I have already figured out that the phenomena that some call "reverse energy" or "back EMF" to quote a few titles is a different form of energy than electricity. If I am right, electrical flow is not unipolar, but is in fact a bipolar system, in that as electricity flows down the wire one direction, and opposite charge of a different type flows in the opposite direction. It would probably have it's own fields at 180 degrees out from the normal magnetic and electric, and would be completely camouflaged because we only expect and look for the electric effects. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, even in a situation such as a superconductor. Resistance to electron flow is not equal and opposite by any sense of the word, and for the topic under discussion, neither is inertia as applied to electron flow.


The flow of said energy may well be the cause of gravity for all we know, which could explain why the magnetic and gravitic fields are so similar. Gravity is only a dent in a sheet for someone who cannot think three dimensionally. Science doesn't get the luxury of playing flatland in a three dimensional construct. In three dimensions, gravity pulls equally from all directions in relation to the mass, not just in the galactic plane. If you apply the dented sheet analogy to every point on a sphere and then combine the effects, then the "dent" is neutralized. The supposed "dent" then becomes a homogenized sphere of spacetime around a spherical mass. The dented sheet notion is based upon giving one plane of reference preference over another with each iteration.


Paul Andrulis

[Vinyasi]

Here's a definition. Although it may likely get deleted, still there is a backup copy (see, below).

I've been warned that my recent contribution to WikiBooks will be deleted since it is offensive to someone's sensibilities:

"This is original research of the most egregious kind trying to pretend that the laws of physics are a fantasy. It doesn't belong here."

Backed up here.

[sm0ky2]

Free Energy is that energy which comes at no cost to the system.


Overunity is a self-defeating fallacy. Here is why:
The moment something if defined as "OU", we instantly look for the source.
Once the source is defined/discovered, the system falls outside of OU.


Two entirely different concepts.


You can have free energy, without overunity.
Example: two sympathetically interacting magnetic systems.
Neither is giving the other any "energy".
The energy comes from Momenti interactions, independent of either system themselves.
Both systems increase their energy as a result.
We see this in space all the time, more difficult to produce here on earth buy can be done.


But this is not overunity, because we know where the energy comes from.

[Vinyasi]

Sorry, thought I would jump in on this one. Overunity, by definition, is the Coefficient Of Power (COP)>1 within a closed system, which, within a closed system should not be possible. The equations should balance upon both sides.

They cannot balance if the real portion of input is reduced to a mere catalyst (nano or pico watts) and no exit is allowed so as to discourage (ie, prevent) the formation of the normal orientation of the flow of current. The model I wish to conjure up for you consists of an open transmission line in which one of its terminals is terminated by a closed, self-shorted transmission line (a closed loop). The open line sets the stage for the reversal of current which will manifest within the shorted transmission line. And if there is any energy available, nearby, for stealing, then this architecture will steal it. But, if there is no energy, nearby, then this architecture will manifest its own negative watts from its catalytic condition of starvation and constriction of movement.

The conventional view is that current will be in alignment with voltage, more or less, not greater than plus or minus 90 degrees of temporal angular displacement between the two. But my non-conventional view induces coils to become generators rather than consumers since current is *forced* to become inverted to voltage.

Under the weird conditions which I am proposing, current *must invert itself* to head for the only exit. This will be through the same portal through which it came in since no other portal (of inlet or exit) is provided by design. Please see ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oscillations_of_Radiant_Energy_due_to_throwing_away_most_of_the_input..png

... which is very similar to ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tesla_wireless_power_theory_-_Electrical_Experimenter_Feb_1919.png

Hence, current is now displaced from voltage by 180 degrees of displacement causing it to amass a greater difference in voltage rather than depleting/equalizing differences in voltage. This is in conformity with the passive sign convention for the generation of power without ever suspecting that passive components, which are reactive (such as: coils and capacitors) can become active and generate power without having to first store that energy, especially: inductors, and without any significant prime mover providing the energy from outside of the electrical system. This is due to ... (see next comment)

It has to be a closed system, in that all inputs of energy HAVE TO BE KNOWN and accounted for. The purpose for shielding in electronics is to remove energy coming in from outside a circuit, for example. If the outside source is unknown on an unshielded circuit, then COP>1 seems to be broached, but in fact has not. In this case, the "system" under examination is too small in scope. 


Overunity does not and cannot exist in reality, and has no bearing upon how much energy is intended to flow in the system, but is determined by whatever energy can act upon a system, intentional and unintentional, known or unknown.

My version of electrical overunity is when electrical reactance is seen as a potentiality which, like a cookie cutter, makes clones of itself upon whatever energy passes through it.

Forget, for the moment, of reactance performing a service of merely storing energy on a temporary basis within the complex number field. This is true, except what happens whenever the input of real power is kept ridiculously low by intention and no exit is allowed for current to flow? Under these conditions, when it comes time to square a complex number, the real input continues to shrink and the imaginary portion becomes a negative value and accumulates serving as the causation for the growth of negative watts within passive coils (not being rotated; just sitting there). The complex portion continues to just "hang around" until it gets its chance to generate more negative watts while the real input continues to thermodynamically shrink (due to various resistances acting against that real input of power) and the complex portion continues to be retained in abeyance until the next cycle of oscillation does something with it.

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Block_Diagram

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#A_Low_Input_Power

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Free_Energy_does_not_Exist#Voltage_Drop

Paul Andrulis