Newsflash: Overunity is impossible

[The Observer]

Just to be clear, Mr. News, I would also like you consider this.

AN ELECTROMAGNET

A coil around a Low Coercitivity Ferromagnetic material. (this means the magnetic dipoles spin freely)

          First measure the magnetic field from just the coil without the Ferromagnetic Material inside with X amount of current.

          Second, measure the magnetic field from coil with the Ferromagnetic Material inside with same X amount of current.

Can you comprehend that the magnetic field is 1,000s of  times greater if not 1 MILLION times greater?

            Much less explain it?

The answer lies in ANISOTROPIC ENERGY ( a quantum energy that causes dipoles to line up when they shouldn't Newtonianly.)
And, the fact that electrons never stop spinning.

Stick that in your pipe,
                                         smoke it,
                                                            and let me know what you think.

Yours truly,

                    The Observer.

P.S.  Extra Credit.
                                Try to make a speaker by replacing the magnet with a coil and taking out the ferromagnetic material that is engulfed by the coil coming from  the amplifier.

                                If you can produce the same sound with the same signal energy, I will give you a MILLION DOLLARS ! (if i had it of course)
                       

[nickle989]

@ Charlie .. some would say that magnets are a form of order as it is the order that is able to create and continue that magetism until heat is applied which would cause disorder .. or a repulsing magnet of equal or greater strength diminishes the magnetism.  But I would have to agree with your statement that most of our physics and understanding comes from disorder vs. the other way around.  This could be an interesting topic on the observation of order ... hmm .. any one have any thoughts on this?

[allcanadian]

@newsflash

Overunity means you're getting more out than you put in (impossible). Unity would be getting the same amount back (also impossible, since heat is always lost. A system can never be 100% efficient). Underunity is getting less out than you put in (always happens, since no system is 100% efficient). It's very simple, and I'm surprised you're on this site with 600+ posts without even being able to clearly define overunity.

Overunity means you're getting more out than you put in (impossible).

Hmmm, I can place a black piece of paper in the sunlight and the energy from this sunlight will heat the paper, I have put none of this heat into the paper---- the sunlight has, you are going to have to be much more specific in your objections.

Unity would be getting the same amount back (also impossible, since heat is always lost. A system can never be 100% efficient).

I would submit that every system is 100% efficient, this heat you say that is lost has to go "somewhere" does it not? If heat is lost from one place it must be gained in another or this would violate the conservation of energy. As you know energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only charge forms.

Underunity is getting less out than you put in (always happens, since no system is 100% efficient).

Underunity? Again, if energy cannot be created or destroyed how can there be underunity? Underunity would imply that there could be less energy that which you started with, just because entropy or radiation of energy from a system occurs does not mean energy is lost nor destroyed----it means energy has moved from one place to another. While this is an unwanted effect it is by no means underunity because the heat still exists in another place seperate from where it started.Your conception of underunity could be considered as nothing more that the "movement" of energy.

[exxcomm0n]

Hmmmm....seems the post from newsflash points to the "unified electromagnetic force" to explain magnetics, electricity, and their interaction.
We all know how many hundreds of years that has been understood.and unchallenged or redefined

A short history from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Unified_field_theory

"The first successful (classical) unified field theory was developed by James Clerk Maxwell.
James Clerk Maxwell was a Scottish mathematical physicist, born in Edinburgh....
. In 1820 Hans Christian Oersted discovered that electric currents exerted forces on magnets, while in 1831, Michael Faraday, FRS was an English chemist and physicist who contributed significantly to the fields of electromagnetism made the observation that time-varying magnetic field could induce electric currents. Until then, electricity and magnetism had been thought of as unrelated phenomena. In 1864, Maxwell published his famous paper on a dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. This was the first example of a theory that was able to encompass previous separate field theories (namely electricity and magnetism) to provide a unifying theory of electromagnetism. Later, in his theory of special relativity Albert Einstein  was able to explain the unity of electricity and magnetism as a consequence of the unification of space and time into an entity we now call spacetime."

The question I have is if that <above> is the perfect definitive answer for electromagnetism, why does it keep getting redefined by these "johnny come lately" types like Einstein?

Better yet, why do they keep calling it a "theory"?

[The Observer]

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I guess I needed to mention that the strings are exactly the same as well their length and tension.

I kind of get the idea that you haven't considered resonance or how it works.

The point that you missed is that the acoustic guitar's body is a natural amplifier needing no energy from the ELECTRIC COMPANY.
  It actually stores the waves entering it, and emits waves of greater amplitude commensurate with the amount of wave energy it can store.
    It is truly an interesting phenomenon that is very different from 99.9% of all physics.

Please study this and get back to me.

I do Thank You for inspiring everyone to think hard though.

The Observer.