Attempting to use classic theory for overunity explanation

[Khwartz]

Hi! all busy guys here!

First, thanks for all the huge amount of experiments and personal experiences shared in this forum.

I'm here to propose to explain overunity by usual theory of electricity and magnetism.


The first idea I submit for critics, is that the gain of energy obtained in overunity device, like heat-pump or eventual self-running generators, finds is root in same phenomenon:

We saturate a space with an energy we want to catch and because of this saturation, the exceeding energy will want to leave this space.

The control of the flux or of the radiations will permit to use or stock this energy while transferring from a space to an other.

To be clearer (sorry, english is not my native language and it's pretty much efforts to type what I want to express and thanks my browser for the orthographic corrections ) shall take the heat-pump:

We compress a gas to concentrate the entropy of the space. That creates a Difference of Potential of entropy between the inside space of the compressor chamber with the environment or other space of the device.

So, by this DP, and by a law that I call the "Law of Equilibrium Tendency" (implied "in the space"), the exceed entropy, expressed as temperature, will have the tendency to find a way for reaching back the equilibrium.

While controlling this tendency we can use this DP and stock or use the "exceeding energy", relatively to the space considered.

All the problem of overunity is that the ratio of the power of energy we want under the power of the energy that cost to us is > 1.0. It has never meant to "create" any energy from "nowhere"! in the usual cases like so heat-pumps, wind-turbine, solar-panels, etc.

So, my point is about electromagnetic motors/generators and possible overunity:

As Tesla has seen in very first times, when we inject very shorts chocks of hight voltage in a coil (compressing electric-field), there is a huge "pic" response in term of voltage too, and the Back EMF would be this tendency to reach back equilibrium.

What I see too, is that while we do this, while very saturating the electric field, that creates such a DP that creates to a the tendency to convert this electrical energy in magnetic energy and makes when comes backward in the coil, reactive voltage with reactive current (that we can't read on a ordinary meter) and this is this current which can feed the batteries without been observe if lack of adequate instruments.

So for this first point, for me, no "exotic theory" needed.


My second point is this one:

When we push back a magnetic field, we do it we a certain speed, known as very very lower than light-speed. But when we take-off any opposition to the compressed magnetic or electric field, the backward movement of the field comes back not at the same speed, but near at light-speed (even if in a mechanical viewpoint, the moving parts reacting to it are much slower).

We could say that the energetic work would be the same in the tow case, but I looks to me not:

Look at the wind, the power of a wind goes with the cube of it's speed.

Take a electric rotative generator, its power goes with the square of the rotating speed.

Or, to speed a car from 0 to 100 miles/hour on 100 meters in 5 seconds, how much more power it takes ? how much more energy we will consume than if the same distance in 1 min?...

You know: E=mc2...

So, the energy of the backward magnetic-field could represent more energy because of the difference of speed, even if the length of the path is the same.

So, here is my theory, and again, sorry if not very clear, but I will try to answer any question.

What do you think? tell me in what I could be wrong...

Cheers, Khwartz.

[boguslaw]

Overunity is simply the same effect like with CFL bulbs when current is flowing at higher frequency many times through the same load.Or in resonance when initial impulse will create response of multiple times longer.
The ideal OU device is a "bell in vacuum" where there is huge energy flowing and load is resistance to this flow while initial "kicking" impulse occur very rarely.Still oscillation is undamped.This is one effect , there are others like ferrorezonance or displacement current. Succesful devices combine few effects together to have COP > 100

[mbrownn]

Overunity is simply the same effect like with CFL bulbs when current is flowing at higher frequency many times through the same load.Or in resonance when initial impulse will create response of multiple times longer.
The ideal OU device is a "bell in vacuum" where there is huge energy flowing and load is resistance to this flow while initial "kicking" impulse occur very rarely.Still oscillation is undamped.This is one effect , there are others like ferrorezonance or displacement current. Succesful devices combine few effects together to have COP > 100

As I see it there are two ways to get electrical overunity.

First though we have to accept that we are surrounded in a sea of energy, all cosmologists accept this so I say it does not break any laws of physics. So all we have to do is create a device that pumps this energy in the same way as a heat pump pumps heat. The usual method is with pulsed DC in a coil but instead of compressing and expanding a gas as in a heat pump, we are compressing and expanding a magnetic field. Our problem is that the "excess" energy cannot be measured as you say, but its effects can be.

The second method is less controversial although its implications could be. It is recycling the electricity, we use it to do work and collect what wasn't used up and use it again. The problem here is that for this to be true it means that 746 watts is not 1 hp but the difference between the input of energy and what can be collected that wasn't consumed less the losses is 1hp.

With an electric motor that is 70% efficient we can put in 746 watts of energy (ie 1hp) and 522 watts of work is done by the motor with 224 watts of heat being created under ohms law friction and other losses. The problem is we can collect electricity coming out of the other side of the motor and if the motor is pulsed we can collect inductive kickback too. If the sum total of what can be collected is bigger than 522w then we must have a second input, if the amount collected is less than 522 watts then the difference between 522 watts and what is collected is 1hp.

On DC the last statement seems to be true as I have been able to collect more than 150 watts, some have collected over 300 watts suggesting that 1hp is more like 200w.

On pulsed DC it is possible to collect over 70% of the input on the inductive kickback and collect some of the output from the motor before the pulse switches off too. How much you can collect depends upon what type of motor is being used and the load conditions. This is the area I am researching and it all points to overunity as 522 watts of mechanical power plus 224 watts of losses plus any recovery at all must be overunity.

[boguslaw]

As I see it there are two ways to get electrical overunity.

First though we have to accept that we are surrounded in a sea of energy, all cosmologists accept this so I say it does not break any laws of physics. So all we have to do is create a device that pumps this energy in the same way as a heat pump pumps heat. The usual method is with pulsed DC in a coil but instead of compressing and expanding a gas as in a heat pump, we are compressing and expanding a magnetic field. Our problem is that the "excess" energy cannot be measured as you say, but its effects can be.

The second method is less controversial although its implications could be. It is recycling the electricity, we use it to do work and collect what wasn't used up and use it again. The problem here is that for this to be true it means that 746 watts is not 1 hp but the difference between the input of energy and what can be collected that wasn't consumed less the losses is 1hp.

With an electric motor that is 70% efficient we can put in 746 watts of energy (ie 1hp) and 522 watts of work is done by the motor with 224 watts of heat being created under ohms law friction and other losses. The problem is we can collect electricity coming out of the other side of the motor and if the motor is pulsed we can collect inductive kickback too. If the sum total of what can be collected is bigger than 522w then we must have a second input, if the amount collected is less than 522 watts then the difference between 522 watts and what is collected is 1hp.

On DC the last statement seems to be true as I have been able to collect more than 150 watts, some have collected over 300 watts suggesting that 1hp is more like 200w.

On pulsed DC it is possible to collect over 70% of the input on the inductive kickback and collect some of the output from the motor before the pulse switches off too. How much you can collect depends upon what type of motor is being used and the load conditions. This is the area I am researching and it all points to overunity as 522 watts of mechanical power plus 224 watts of losses plus any recovery at all must be overunity.

Yes,it's all true. Attached is one reason for overunity (not mine image ,don't know who is the author I hope he won't protest)

[kcarring]

I'm sure someone has said this long before me, cause I'm no scientist, but...

e=mc^2, isn't the whole equation

Even if it were, this simplified version.

The square root of a number has it's imaginary component.

So, in science we often toss that number out. Forget it.

What if approaching infinity with that imaginary result were to prove possible?

It could explain a lot of things.

[Khwartz]

Yes,it's all true. Attached is one reason for overunity (not mine image ,don't know who is the author I hope he won't protest)

Huum, seen your schematics I think you confuse "inverter", "pseudo Joules-Thief" ("Thief" means stealing while no "joule", no "energy" is stolen), and "overunity device".

What we name "Joules thiefs" are just kind of inverters: they just reduce the resistance of the receptor by ionisation because of high voltage. While hight voltage has started the device, it can run, it's used since a while in FL-tube, with use of a "starter" + coil-core-ballast (in classic versions), and now (in the electronic version), the said "Joule thiefs" are used, even it's not named like this.

So, here we just increase only the "passive" power, the one of the receptor, but not the one of the generator! and not additional Joule is produced in the normal cycle, as I could see, but at the start with high pic voltage, could be in a brief period of time

[Khwartz]

I'm sure someone has said this long before me, cause I'm no scientist, but...

e=mc^2, isn't the whole equation

Could you give me the right one please?

Even if it were, this simplified version.

The square root of a number has it's imaginary component.

So, in science we often toss that number out. Forget it.

What if approaching infinity with that imaginary result were to prove possible?

It could explain a lot of things.

I've never seen that imaginary number in this formula of the energy.

But for my purpose, the point was to show that the energy for a movement of equal distance is not the same while depending of the speed, and even if the scare of the speed, that could explain a difference between the energy in the Back-EMF and when we just push it by our means. (Even if I'm not sure it really happen like that, I just mind...).

[kcarring]

Could you give me the right one please?

I've never seen that imaginary number in this formula of the energy.

But for my purpose, the point was to show that the energy for a movement of equal distance is not the same while depending of the speed, and even if the scare of the speed, that could explain a difference between the energy in the Back-EMF and when we just push it by our means. (Even if I'm not sure it really happen like that, I just mind...).

I see your point too

The full equation is E = m * gamma * c^2.

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

m = mass,
c = speed of light,
v = Velocity

And my only point is...

with Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)...

there are two answers to any square root.
one is two positive numbers.
one is two negative numbers.

We throw away the negatives, ... why? Because they don't make sense.

But what if the speed of light could be broken by a particular such as many subsequent replications of the recent CERN experiment would suggest (hypothetically).

Maybe then the negative answers will take meaning.

If there are more particles in space than we understand fully, and we find ways to perturb them, could they not then give off unexpected energies that were in fact still describable by math, just the part of the math, we never use?

I don't know, it's just a thought, a twist on what Bearden's take is... I'm certainly no authority. Just a thinker.

[boguslaw]

Huum, seen your schematics I think you confuse "inverter", "pseudo Joules-Thief" ("Thief" means stealing while no "joule", no "energy" is stolen), and "overunity device".

What we name "Joules thiefs" are just kind of inverters: they just reduce the resistance of the receptor by ionisation because of high voltage. While hight voltage has started the device, it can run, it's used since a while in FL-tube, with use of a "starter" + coil-core-ballast (in classic versions), and now (in the electronic version), the said "Joule thiefs" are used, even it's not named like this.

So, here we just increase only the "passive" power, the one of the receptor, but not the one of the generator! and not additional Joule is produced in the normal cycle, as I could see, but at the start with high pic voltage, could be in a brief period of time

No.You didn't understood the concept.This example tell us that when load is decoupled from initial power, energy required to power it is much smaller then we thought. When we used untuned device like our electrical appliances and we throw the switch the only part which is tuned is the balance in power station managed by trained personel, but we are loosing much energy just for heat and radio waves generation. Thomas Bearden said it extremally well ; we spent energy to turn around the shaft in power station, once we did small turn the electrical dipoles in circuit are cancelling and we have to do it again, and so on in a very very very fast succession (not 50hz of course !!!) . "They" are happy we are loosing energy because it costs money ! it costs money to loose ,not much to produce it.

When you charge capacitor and discharge disruptively it is like having one kick by hammer against bell. if you have bell done right and placed freely in vacuum you can make it ringing continuously many minutes between each hammer kick. Those persons having extremally efficient devices like Don Smith or Kapanadze are doing it that way. There is no other way, except OU by resonance. They are just much more clever then we are .....the difference is what kind of hammer and bell you are using... We are using rubber hammer and wood bell ;-)

[Khwartz]

I see your point too

Hi kcarring! Very thanks for your very constructive answer that makes the "chmilblick" (as we said in France pronouced: "shmeelbleeck") going a little (or more than a little) forward .

The full equation is E = m * gamma * c^2.

gamma = 1 / Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

m = mass,
c = speed of light,
v = Velocity

ok, could you send me links or papers on that formula? When it has been proposed, by who, it's theoretical demonstration and possible verification in the physical universe?

And my only point is...

with Sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)...

there are two answers to any square root.
one is two positive numbers.
one is two negative numbers.

We throw away the negatives, ... why? Because they don't make sense.

But what if the speed of light could be broken by a particular such as many subsequent replications of the recent CERN experiment would suggest (hypothetically).

Maybe then the negative answers will take meaning.

Sorry, I disagree with you, dear kcarring: that light speed could be broken will not correspond to negative scare roots, only higher speed, so positive speed. Look well to the formula!

BUT! ....

Look again and you will see that IF the speed of the particle, according to this formula, is higher than the light speed, so THE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE will be NEGATIVE! And THAT is very interesting right statement!

That could fit with endothermic phenomena already seen in free energy experiments!... and could be, if the MASS comes from CONDENSED LOOPED ENERGY, a possibility to get NEGATIVE MASS, so ANTIGRAVITY!!!!!! sun: :

If there are more particles in space than we understand fully

As I told you, for quantum-physic, "vacuum" is not "vacuum" but "plenum"! a whole full of energy of length waves too small to be registered by instrumentation, that nullify it's global energy by global compensation/balancing, and behind the reach of statistical calculations (on which quantum-physics is all about).

, and we find ways to perturb them, could they not then give off unexpected energies that were in fact still describable by math, just the part of the math, we never use?

I understand your viewpoint but as I've shown you, it is not the case here, and for "reactive energy", it is encounted by standard maths!

But the things work like you said any way: EM-waves are, indeed, perturbations in the "quantum-plenum".

As I could see, magnetic waves of magnetic field, are a mode of spreading perturbations, and electric waves of electric field, an other, and the tow are associated.

So associated, as I said already several times, in such a way that when we saturate one of these tow modes, the exceeding energy is then expressed in the other mode, like passing from one dimension (mathematical dimension, that means "the measurement of a quality/caracteristic", nothing more!) to an other, that makes apparently disappearing from one of the tow field, and that we can then convert-back by converters like capacitors or batteries, coils, resistors, depending in which way we want to do it.

I don't know, it's just a thought, a twist on what Bearden's take is... I'm certainly no authority. Just a thinker.

Yeah, I know Bearden "theories". I've read of them, and obviously for me, he doesn't really understand himself what he does, and goes with Mr Bedidni, too much in "mystics" . And most of all, I'm very surprised of the very poor coherence of his "pseudo scientific language", as he says himself; while he was supposed to be physicist and engineer in nuclear stuff!

It's even because of my disappointment that I've decided to take all from the very beginning and see if all this can be first explained by usual physics and formulas, and only see after for "exotic" stuff if no possibility to explain the different phenomena we observe in the free energy work.

But to his credit, we have to very thanks him for what he brought in terms of new ideas and even technical results, that he gave in Open Source!!!

The "authority" (in theoretical matters) is one who gets correct results! It is not the certificates, it's the very dam results! like prediction of new phenomena or explanation of those not explained to date. So that make Tom Bearden an "authority" in term of practical results at least!

[kcarring]

Look again and you will see that IF the speed of the particle, according to this formula, is higher than the light speed, so THE ENERGY OF THE PARTICLE will be NEGATIVE! And THAT is very interesting right statement!

It was very late when I made that post. And you are implying exactly what I am getting at. I found a video, actually, made by a phycisist defending this aspect, he works in a particle accelerator and is right now involved in one of the biggest experiments. ever.. let me see if I can find it. I'll post it, it is pretty cool.

Another thought:

Despite having done research in 1987 involving a neutrino experiment across space, many light years away (where C was not broken) we now have a report from CERN (who state themselves it is inconclusive and needs further investigation) done with an experiment over only a several hundred kilometers, where in speed has been calculated using GPS (that uses einstens math) to, what, shatter Einsteins math...

That in itself doesn't read very well, does it?
I think that is why even CERN, themselves stated that this experiment is not game changing. It is right in their conclusions, I have read it. It is only the media that have stated Einsteins theories have been shattered, and that just serves to sell papers, interviews, shows and magazines. I rather hope it is though. Eventually replicated.

[Khwartz]

It was very late when I made that post. And you are implying exactly what I am getting at.

Nice to know that kcarring!

I found a video, actually, made by a phycisist defending this aspect, he works in a particle accelerator and is right now involved in one of the biggest experiments. ever.. let me see if I can find it. I'll post it, it is pretty cool.

I would be very interested!

Another thought:

Despite having done research in 1987 involving a neutrino experiment across space, many light years away (where C was not broken) we now have a report from CERN (who state themselves it is inconclusive and needs further investigation) done with an experiment over only a several hundred kilometers, where in speed has been calculated using GPS (that uses einstens math) to, what, shatter Einsteins math...

Yeh, that is a main problem i had noticed to a science philosopher and physicist in France : , that the way we express the physic impede our view of the reality and that's hard or could be impossible to evaluate a theory by itself, would need always a metatheory as we well know in maths. I wrote to him that the precession of Mercury that had been used to evaluation Einstein theories could be explained differently with fields theories and considering that movement of a particle could equal mass in the case of the photon, so that it could explain curve trajectory of light near the Sun, like a steel ball passing close a magnet, etc., instead that "space itself" has been "curved" to suite to the feet of the Great Einstein! (while it was just a mathematical concept that has nothing to have we what we can observe as "curve" in space! he, Jean-marc LEVY-LEBLOND, organised then 2 meeting around year 2000, with highest scientists in Europe on this subject of the relationship of how we see the world through the mathematics we use and the reality, but he never gave my name, while quoting me even exactly in his presentation...

Any way, its much about problems with self-reference that I speak, not only in term of theory itself but in term of scientist behaviour whom has some difficulties to be able to leave their on way to think the physic to examine other possibilities, judging them with their own paradigm when a new one could be necessary for the evaluation.

That in itself doesn't read very well, does it?

indeed!

I think that is why even CERN, themselves stated that this experiment is not game changing. It is right in their conclusions, I have read it. It is only the media that have stated Einsteins theories have been shattered, and that just serves to sell papers, interviews, shows and magazines. I rather hope it is though. Eventually replicated.

Hard to know! I think. they could have interest to not say really what they think on such subjects. Through all the history, persons who teach the conventional theories, used to very dislike any questioning on the theories that has feed them and justify their post and job. A side of this, could such a things like "negative energy" would be not very welcome for some businesses on the Heart and would give credit to many experiment-results in Free Energy they can still attack for now as none-valid.

About cooling, I really mind if cooling in transistors in some free energy devices, could be about over light speed particles involved?

Have you heard about the vector potential of Richard FEYNMAN? would you see a relation like me with reactive energy? (or "radiant" energy).

[Khwartz]

Overunity is simply the same effect like with CFL bulbs when current is flowing at higher frequency many times through the same load.Or in resonance when initial impulse will create response of multiple times longer.
The ideal OU device is a "bell in vacuum" where there is huge energy flowing and load is resistance to this flow while initial "kicking" impulse occur very rarely.Still oscillation is undamped.This is one effect , there are others like ferrorezonance or displacement current. Succesful devices combine few effects together to have COP > 100

Hi! boguslaw. I had a look back on this thread to see if I have change my point of view since I've created 5 years ago.

I readed your post again and realized that for me you make a confusion between "superefficiency" and "hyperefficiency", I could say.

Yes, indeed: resonnance won't bring you further than "superconductance", a conductance much more close to zero BUT absolutely not "negative"! I mean: never producing at the end an electromotive force.

Most of the time I've seen until now, serious guyes becoming emthousiast observing a speeding of their electromagnetic turning machine, they thought about overunity, while there was just a, but yes, significant drop of resistivity or global inductance. It is very not the same! Believe the words of an electrician! (and heat-pump engineering specialized).

So I think you should be just a bit more cautious about your evaluations of overunity. And if you want, I've just brought myself a suggestion of probably new device, I will be pleased that you play back "against me" and argument, if any claim of overunity is made. Why? Because the spirit of the true science is to be open to the maximum of critics (constructive one of course! ).

Nive to discuss that around again if you want to

Cheer, Khwartz.

[boguslaw]

Concept is easy to grasp when you combine few not yet assembled aspects.

First I know what you said. There is no OU without energy input from external source unknown to us for example. But you can made circuit much more efficient then we expect today eliminating some wrong assumptions put in every engineer's tasks today. Suddenly a motor which can run on idle using only 15W while at full load consuming tremendous 2kW can be bring down to 15-50W consumption on full load. And this is not magic, it's only clever usage of Lenz law. Now those 50W need to be taken from envinronment via resonant antenna. I would say - easy task for experienced engineer but we are not experienced yet.

It struck me when I thought about power return via neutral wire to power station. If you look at complete power grid with consumers and power station as a whole resonant circuit then obviously this energy should (and probably is ??? ) be re-used.

In other words : due to inefficiency of our common electrical appliances we are wasting a lot of incoming electric energy . I believe someday we will find that what we paid to electric companies were only looses in new paradigm of electrical science.


Finally we don't need to produce a lot of electrical energy. A charged capacitor providing an initial kick of required energy level is enough to maintain a kW electrical system in re-usage state with small looses compensated by antenna sucking energy from broadband radio waves of cosmic origin......

[Khwartz]

Overunity is simply the same effect like with CFL bulbs when current is flowing at higher frequency many times through the same load.Or in resonance when initial impulse will create response of multiple times longer.
The ideal OU device is a "bell in vacuum" where there is huge energy flowing and load is resistance to this flow while initial "kicking" impulse occur very rarely.Still oscillation is undamped.This is one effect , there are others like ferrorezonance or displacement current. Succesful devices combine few effects together to have COP > 100

Hi, boguslaw.

Personally, I've never seen purely resonance bringing easy chance of OU. It does bring less resistive conductors easy, but not rarely an additive electromotive force.

The experiments like in the replications of the Muller Dynamo where at a certain time the speed increase and the draw of the primary power drop and the experimenter goes very enthusiastic about OU, often are rather more in the case of a kind of superconductivity, but "superconductivity" is not "hyperconductivity"

I think only hight very short pics of voltage could have a chance to bring OU by the principle our conjectured "pumping effect".

Never the less, by resonance, we can add voltage to voltage while adding frequency to frequency in the same phase, and in reducing the time of he pics. We could say it is a kind of "electromagnetic venturi effect"; as I could see still the thing today.

Regards.