These Are Real Pentagon Reports On Warp Drive, Extra Dimensions, Anti-Gravity, And More

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    You should check their principles one after another for to be completely sure and not self-deluded instead. This is how the science works - by falsification, not doubting. Other than that, the overunity is as well defined as every other energetic efficiency.



    Not always - check for example here: Brownian Motion of Graphene: Potential Source of Limitless Energy at Room Temperature


    No. Science works by applying lessons learned, like the conservation of energy. This saves us from an endless morass of futile work. This is not doubting, it is just being rational.


    The best use you can have for the term "over unity" is to say that it is impossible.


    Brownian motion:

    https://physics.aps.org/synops…03/PhysRevLett.117.126801


    "While the researchers monitored the membranes for only two and three-quarter hours, they expect that this quivering, jumping motion would continue endlessly, allowing nanomachines to be powered continuously."


    Extracting energy from the random thermal fluctuations in the speed of the molecules in a fluid will make the fluid colder. It will be a heat engine and such an engine must have he heat source and a heat sink. The sink must be colder than the source. When somebody comes up with a design we may be able to locate the heat sink.


    I have seen that voltage peaks of 0.2 V have been observed, no info on the current. What can you drive with 0.2 V? Since these peaks are random you can't connect them in series and they are too small to be rectified.


    Perhaps this idea will fall in the same or a similar trap as Maxwell's demon did.

    Maxwell’s equations – one glaring problem is that in many developments the math requires infinitesimal charges and magnetic fields in the integrations. However, it is known that charge is quantized.


    See work by Milne as reported in: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227121.pdf


    "It is impossible to use a moving test charge to measure the magnetic field without its own velocity, relative to the velocities of the other charges present in the field, bringing into apparent existence distinct additional currents. This is a very deep insight and has not been generally recognized. The important point is that either. 1) the theory is not relativistic invariant or

    2) it is not consistent with quantized charged. The second case is often overlooked and it is tacitly assumed that a test charge can be made arbitrarily small. Yet it is known that charge is quantized and is invariant to all transformations. This means that any theory which hypothesizes an arbitrarily small test charge is fabricating a nonphysical quantity. "

    Quote from oldguy

    Maxwell’s equations – one glaring problem is that in many developments the math requires infinitesimal charges and magnetic fields in the integrations. However, it is known that charge is quantized.


    See work by Milne as reported in: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227121.pdf


    Why is that a problem? In the classic theory of electricity the electric charge is treated as a continuous entity and this works very well. The same philosophy is used when applied mechanics treats matter as a continuous substance.


    And this is how it must be, there is no way that we could keep track of the individual atoms and their electrons in even the tiniest speck of matter.


    But when the scientists wanted to explain away the ultraviolet catastrophe Maxwell did not come to their rescue. The embryo of quantum mechanics had to be conjured up.


    BTW, the Milne link does not load the document.

    Quote
    No. Science works by applying lessons learned, like the conservation of energy. This saves us from an endless morass of futile work. This is not doubting, it is just being rational.


    Nope, standard and official scientific method is based on falsifications of theories and lessons learned. I'm indeed aware that for proponents of mainstream science opposite ways are more comfortable, but no theory should be considered fully proven. This is just the difference between facts and theory.


    Regarding the energy conservation law, the perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind don't even violate it - so that your references to mass-energy equivalence or energy conservation law aren't even relevant here. These theorems simply remain valid there.


    This is just the problem with many supporters of mainstream science, that they not only don't understand the scientific method, but even the subject which they're objecting because they're not aware of its loopholes. This indeed leads into frequent false negatives.

    Quote

    The sink must be colder than the source. When somebody comes up with a design we may be able to locate the heat sink.


    Many designs and their explanations are already presented in my link. I already dedicated some time for understanding this subject, so please don't expect you can convince me with your schematic objections - everything what you're saying I already considered many times. Nature has many examples of overunity phenomena developed itself - for example the rogue waves. This is natural example of how to drain macroscopic energy from microscopic environment. Another ones are even utilized practically as so-called stochastic resonance.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    How you can drain more energy from loaded spring or battery than you put in? Dissolving in acid?

    You misunderstand. Energy is added to the spring when you wind it up. The mass increases. Energy is "drained" as it un-winds. The mass decreases, at the relativistic rate (mc^2).


    In cold fusion, energy was added to the system when the deuterium formed in the big bang. It is drained from the system when deuterons combine to form helium. (That is probably the main reaction.) The mass of the resulting helium is slightly lower than the 2 deuterons. The lost mass converts to energy, 24 MeV per helium atom.


    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    After then the term "energetic efficiency" also has no meaning - if we cannot define 100 percent or more, then we even cannot define 98%, 92% or whatever else particular efficiency...

    Mass-energy are conserved. You can never create or destroy them. Energy efficiency is a measure of how well you convert energy from one form to another, such as mechanical to electrical, or heat to mechanical. It has nothing to do with the relativistic conversion from mass to energy or vice versa. That conversion always happens at 100% of Einstein's rate, in any system that produces energy or absorbs it.

    This is all irrelevant, as nobody ever checked some overunity device with respect to mass-energy conservation law. I don't like wasting time in irrelevant discussions - my life is too short for it.

    Maybe some overunity devices really work into account of their rest mass - why not? I also already considered it. Many physicists believe for example, that protons are unstable and they're looking for examples of their decay - what if they have these examples before nose in form of certain overunity devices?


    Quote

    Mass-energy are conserved. You can never create or destroy them


    Except that the definitions of matter and energy shift all the time. The first mass-energy violation observed has lead into finding of neutrino particles (it took twenty six years ). Maybe we find some new examples of mass - energy conservation violation later and even later we will find a new explanations for them (particles of dark matter or energy, graviton, whatever).


    Or we won't - never say never. Only trolls are sure with everything.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Many designs and their explanations are already presented in my link. I already dedicated some time for understanding this subject, so please don't expect you can convince me with your schematic objections - everything what you're saying I already considered many times. Nature has many examples of overunity phenomena developed itself - for example the rogue waves. This is natural example of how to drain macroscopic energy from microscopic environment. Another ones are even utilized practically as so-called stochastic resonance.


    In what way are rogue waves "overunity"? Even if they are unexpectedly higher than the surrounding waves, they are not anymore unexplainably higher. The phenomenon can be described by the non-linear Schrödinger equation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_wave.


    "It seems possible to have a rogue wave occur by natural, nonlinear processes from a random background of smaller waves. In such a case, it is hypothesized, an unusual, unstable wave type may form which 'sucks' energy from other waves, growing to a near-vertical monster itself, before becoming too unstable and collapsing shortly after."


    The description of stochastic resonance is much too stochastic for my taste. But I can promise you, what you bet is what you get. There is no over unity energy gain.


    Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!


    I'd guess that most skeptics here, like me, are interested in new ideas at the cutting edge of particle physics, and look with pleasure on any experimental evidence that could support such ideas. That is different from trashing old ideas on no evidence - or jumping on every fringe crackpot idea.

    There are probably modern fission designs for reactors which meet Max's criteria. Unfortunately due to recent catastrophes with fission and the unsolved problem of intensely radioactive long lasting waste, it is politically impossible to go that route. Captain Obvious says that leaves wind, solar and geothermal. Possibly also algae and fast growing plants too.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    This is all irrelevant, as nobody ever checked some overunity device with respect to mass-energy conservation law.

    No one has ever checked any energy producing device with respect to mass-energy laws. The change in mass is far too small to measure with any instruments. These laws have been confirmed with observations of particles and things like that, but no one has ever observed a mass decrease from a macroscopic mechanical, chemical or nuclear reaction.

    Quote
    Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!


    It all started like experimentally confirmed violation of mass-energy conservation law. The finding of neutrino has come 26 years later - it means, whole one quarter of century the physicists faced violation of mass-energy law without its explanation by another experiment. It's as simple as it is. Any other interpretation is irrelevant here.


    Like I said, the overunity devices doesn't imply any measurable violation mass-energy conservation law, these based on perpetuum mobiles of 2nd kind the less.
    Here I collected a quite a few examples of such a devices - many of them were presented in scientific journals, some of them were even peer-reviewed.

    1. Buckling motion of graphene could be used to generate electricity from ambient thermal energy (synopsis)..
    2. Thermoelectric Power Generation from Lanthanum Strontium Titanium Oxide through the Addition of Graphene
    3. On-Chip Maxwell’s Demon as an Information-Powered Refrigerator
    4. Graphite & quartz & rubber based solid state electric generator of GQenergy s.r.l.
    5. Graphene-based "battery" for capturing the thermal energy of ions and converting it into electricity (PDF)
    6. Carbon nanotube rectenna directly converts light into electricity
    7. Microphones sensitive enough for to capture Brownian noise in solids
    8. Steorn's Orbo-Cube battery utilizes graphite suspended in wax electret matrix 1, 2
    9. Silicon Crystal Graphite Battery of QuantaMagnetics, update
    10. Victor Petrik prepares and tests graphite based thermoelectric generator before eyes of his scientific visitors
    11. Self-charging "petrovoltaic cells" of Townsend T Brown
    12. Electret apparatus for supplying electric power of Boyd Bushman
    13. LED's efficiency exceeds 100%
    14. Captret effect - capacitors have the ability to self-charge, Another captret experiments (overunity forums 1, 2, 3)
    15. Carbon Magnesium Volta pile, 2, 3 of John Bedini and Marcus Reid. Crystal battery generating 135 Volts 
    16. Karpen pile from Romania may also serve as a rectenna, Karpen's cell revisited
    17. Clarendon dry pile (Zamboni cell, Oxford bell) could also run on carbon battery
    18. Observations of spontaneous heating of bismuth sphere in magnetic field. Bismuth is diamagnetic topological insulator similar to graphene.
    19. ERR Fluxgenerator alsos uses Bismuth and aluminum are also used in
    20. The mysterious energy generating ChemAlloy story also contains bismuth..
    21. Diamagnetic graphite based motor and Superconducting generator of Andrew Abolafia could work on similar principle
    22. A Self Charging Supercapacitor, Carbon fibre battery
    23. Research of N.E. Zayev about cooling of dielectrics the changing field with energy generation, see also RU2227947 and RU2390907 patents.
    24. Physicists create first photonic Maxwell's demon, Could Maxwell's Demon Exist in Nanoscale Systems?, Autonomous Maxwell's demon displays chilling power
    25. Cool Chips electrons to carry heat from one side of a vacuum diode to the other.
    26. Ambient RF Energy-Harvesting Technologies for Self-Sustainable Standalone Wireless Sensor Platforms, Challenges and Solutions in Battery Fuel Gauging
    27. Environmental Electrosmog Harvester Feeding LED Bulb
    28. Polariton storage of energy, US8611067

    That is to say, I'm not opened to discuss existence of such devices already - I'm only here for to discuss their common working principle, which is outlined for example here.
    If you don't like it, then you're not required to participate on discussion... :) Nobody of dog owners is required to participate in discussion about cats and trying to refuse their existence, if they don't like them - isn't it correct?

    Quote from JedRothwell

    "REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM

    Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it."


    Nope. A match, a spring loaded watch, a battery, or a star all produce more energy out than you put in. That is not a contradiction. The term "over unity" has no deep meaning. It is actually kind of silly. All energy producing systems are over unity. If they were not, they would be endothermic, like a loaf of bread being baked, or a battery being charged.


    It is easy to prove your own point when you pick a suitable line from a comment. What I wrote was:


    "Suppose you have a machine that produces more energy than is input to it.

    Also suppose that this machine does not change in any way during operation."


    A match is not a very good example of a machine that does not change when it emits energy.

    :(

    Quote
    THH:
    Quote
    Zephir, you have not referenced any mass-energy violations. The neutrino example is a supreme case of mass-energy conservation correctly predicting a new unexpected particle!
    Quote
    Zephir:

    It all started like experimentally confirmed violation of mass-energy conservation law. The finding of neutrino has come 26 years later - it means, whole one quarter of century the physicists faced violation of mass-energy law without its explanation by another experiment. It's as simple as it is. Any other interpretation is irrelevant here.


    The case here does not support your interpretation. The experimental confirmation was of detected products < in mass-energy than reactants. Nothing about violation of any theory.


    There are then two hypotheses - both of which are consistent with experiment:


    (1) (mainstream) there must therefore be an undetected particle

    (2) Zephir? there is violation of mass-energy conservation


    It turns out the mainstream view was vindicated after a 26 year wait. It is not that mainstream guys were uninterested in the alternative hypothesis - but no theory showing how it could be panned out so it was never that popular, and everyone knew that an undetected particle was possible, even likely.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.