Does anyone on here who believes in "over unity" devices...

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
Initially the demand for overunity devices will be huge, but once the demand has been met, the business will slow down to a crawl untill someone comes up with a better model/idea.

I just dont think the tax man is going to be very happy with people paying just once for energy.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Power plants are built all the time. The energy requirements of the country, and the world are constantly increasing. Demand for power plants will always be there. So there is no reason to believe that demand would drop off at any point.

Think about it like this, a hydro power plant produces power for people's homes. People pay for this power. So, a smart business man will start a company, get funding, and build a hydro plant. Then he will begin making money by selling the power that is generated.

If Tesla had some free energy device out there, someone would start a company, build a large scale version of this device, and then sell the power it produces. Can you explain how this is any different than a hydro-plant? Why does the government allow hydro plants, but suppresses this Tesla free energy machine? Neither of them would be using oil, so what's the difference?

Power plants pay taxes, so why wouldn't the government was someone to set up a power plant using Tesla's free energy device? After all the term free is misleading, and it still costs money to manufacture the device, people will still have to pay the power company for their power, and the company will still pay taxes to the government. So what logic is there in the argument that the government won't allow tesla's free energy devices, when they would be no different in effect than hydro, geothermal, wave, wind, etc power?

You can build a wind turbine or solar array right now (depending on local regulations) buy an electric car, and be pretty much free of oil companies. Who is stopping you? Not the government. In fact the government will actually help you out, by giving you tax breaks. So what advantage does a supposed Tesla machine have? You already have the option to be energy independent, you just choose not to exercise that option. So a Tesla free energy device would change nothing.

Originally posted by coolhanddan
I have never made this one, but it looks simple enough for your approval, since you will not believe my word alone.

That man is a trickster and he knows it. I was hoping someone would bring up something like this, as it's a PERFECT example of how these free energy proponents are horribly misleading people who are ignorant of how this stuff works. No, I'm not going to just bash it and move on, I will explain it to you, so you can see this man, just like everyone else, is accomplishing absolutely nothing.

He says the power output is greater than the power input. OK. But what does that mean? It doesn't mean what you think it does. He is measuring wattage, wattage is a measurement of power. Power and energy are NOT the same things. He is not generating energy, he is generating power. May seem like I'm arguing semantics here, but I'm not. Power and energy are not the same thing at all. There is a key difference that you must understand in order to understand how these people are tricking and misleading others.

Power (measured in watts) is energy over time. A simple way to think about this is by comparing a high power laser to a standard household light bulb.

A light bulb can put out the same amount of ENERGY as the laser can, but it takes longer to do it, so it has less POWER. The laser on the other hand, puts out the exact same amount of ENERGY, but in a much shorter time, so it has more POWER.

So, when this man says that he has a circuit that puts out more POWER than it consumes, that means absolutely nothing. If he had a circuit that puts out more ENERGY than it consumes, then YES he actually has an over unity device. But he isn't, so he doesn't. Do you understand now?

The language used by these free energy people is downright trickery. Because all of their devices may very well have a larger POWER output than input, but not a higher ENERGY output than input. That is the key difference, and this is the method in which all these people can mislead you into believing that they are actually accomplishing something, when they are not.

Further proof is the fact he says he is using a toroid in his circuit. This is nothing new. Stereo receivers have been doing this forever. It's a power supply. It increases power (watts) which is the only thing this man is doing. He is NOT creating, capturing, harvesting, etc ENERGY. That is the KEY difference here, which proves these people are a fraud, and why anyone who knows anything about how electronics, electricity, and energy work don't even pay attention to them.

Energy is measured in Joules, or (x)watt-hours. That is not how he is measuring his circuit, because he is not measuring energy, he is measuring power, which proves he is NOT generating ENERGY which is what we are trying to get. Power is easy to make, energy isn't only hard to make, it's impossible. Which is why he isn't doing it.

There should be no need for the batteries if he is somehow generating energy. No capacitors either. He should be able to remove the batteries, and the LED will stay illuminated. Wonder why he didn't do that? Because then even the people that don't know about this kind of thing will be able to tell he is a fraud. But the fact he doesn't do that should give you a hint anyway.

One more thing I forgot to put in my previous post, and figured I'd separate it as my last post was pretty long.

He talks about having the LED burning for 9 hours and the voltage didn't change. Not impressive.

Consider this. Your average little indicator LED like the one in his circuit draws about 20 mA or less. Your average AA battery is around 1500-3000 mAh. Lets go with the low end of battery capacity (mAh) at 1500, and do the math.

1500 mAh means you can draw 1,500 milliamps (mA) for one hour. Or you can draw 500 mA for 3 hours. Or 100mA for 15 hours. In the case of an LED with a draw of 20mA, a really cheap low-end AA battery could power it for 75 hours. And he said he left it on for 9 hours? From the looks of the AAs he was using, they were either high quality alkalines or rechargeables. Capacity was more likely in the 2000-3000mAh range.

So, in conclusion, there is nothing surprising about the fact that he was able to leave a tiny LED lit up for 9 hours without significant voltage drop.

Do you see now how these people use misleading language and other statements to trick you into thinking they are doing something they aren't?

Sorry for the long-winded triple post, but I'm confident that any of these claims can be explained logically and accurately, which I just did. No magic there, no free energy, no nothing but trickery, fraud, and completely understood, commonplace, mundane circuits.

Hehe sorry for posting again..

I keep trying to think of how people will support this man's idea that is is producing energy, as I said in my previous posts he is just creating power, not energy. I realize some people may think "well he is creating power, that's still energy right? That additional power has to come from somewhere, right?" Very reasonable question (that I realize nobody has asked yet) so I'll answer it beforehand.

He mentions also that he is using a tank circuit (AKA a LC circuit)

These types of circuits have many uses, but one use is to increase current. As I also stated in my previous posts, watts are a measurement of power. Well how do you calculate watts? By multiplying voltage by current. So when he uses a tank circuit, he is increasing current, therefore increasing watts, which he calls power, but wants YOU to THINK he actually means energy.

If I think of anything else that could better explain that video I'll post, and try to keep it short. If you have any questions or something that you still don't understand about how his circuit works, feel free to ask and I'll answer it to the best of my ability.

reply to post by john_bmth

Over Unity is not the point. Pumping oil out of the ground so that we can refine it into gas, etc, and use it to move around on the planet is not a very sustainable activity and should be seen as a stop-gap measure until we can develop something more sensible. Nuclear energy has a whole other set of issues; dangerous technology.

The situation is that there seems to be way too much interest in protecting the oil business and way too little effort to replace it with something that could be safer on a longer-term basis.

At least since the days of Tesla inventors have been saying they have ideas for alternative ways to generate energy. And from Tesla's time, at least, we have some historical evidence that J. P. Morgan stopped funding Tesla when he (Morgan) realized that he could not control the supply of energy generated by Tesla's method. And so we have the attitude that the corporate world in general, and big banking in particular, is interested in promoting the idea that energy is scarce in order to keep it as a market commodity.

I don't see that anything stated in these posts serves to invalidate that basic impression of the situation.

reply to post by l_e_cox


Is anybody denying that? I think everyone here agrees we need to stop using Oil for energy. I think everyone can also agree that oil companies WANT us to keep using oil, and will do what they can to make sure that happens.

But that's not the subject of this thread. The subject is the various claims of "Free Energy Devices" that people on ATS go around claiming are real, without any evidence at all. The only evidence these people have, that really isn't evidence at all, is that oil companies want to maintain their business. That doesn't prove the existence of a Tesla free energy machine at all.

There are two questions I would like answered.

1. If a Tesla free energy device is real, and is being suppressed by whoever, why are energy solutions such as wind, geothermal, hydro, solar, and wave allowed to exists, and not only exist, but promoted by the government?

2. What advantage does a Tesla free energy device have over the previously mentioned energy alternatives? What makes it so great to suppress, when we already have technologies that meet all of the supposed advantages of a Tesla free energy device?

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by Jademonkey2k
Initially the demand for overunity devices will be huge, but once the demand has been met, the business will slow down to a crawl untill someone comes up with a better model/idea.

I just dont think the tax man is going to be very happy with people paying just once for energy.

I don't see any reason to believe that. Power plants are built all the time. The energy requirements of the country, and the world are constantly increasing. Demand for power plants will always be there. So there is no reason to believe that demand would drop off at any point.

Think about it like this, a hydro power plant produces power for people's homes. People pay for this power. So, a smart business man will start a company, get funding, and build a hydro plant. Then he will begin making money by selling the power that is generated.

Good points, but your falling into the trap of thinking the current way if energy distribution would leak over into the new. From what i have seen and read on the possibility of over unity devices, they would be quite small and modular. Meaning that if you have an over unity "box", adding another box increases the output 2/4/8/16 fold etc.

It wouldn't be a far stretch for people to start putting over unity devices in this lofts or attics to power thier homes indefinatly. Once you have an over unity device installed in your home you would never have to pay for energy again. The only time that you would need to pay is if you wanted more power, or wanted a new version/model of the device. This would again in turn be very very cheap as its modular. Simply bolt on another box.

Hydro/nuclear power plants would be obsolete, along with the power lines and pilons they use to distribute said energy. Why would you pay to have energy deliverd to your home when you can pay once for a box and have your street free from ugly powerlines?

The only money to be made from over unity devices is the manufacturing and installation of the devices. Someone is going to have to build and install them. But once everyone has one of thease devices, the sale on them would be subside very quickly.

At the end of the day there will be a marginal amount of money to be made from them initially, but once the world has been hooked up with all thier power needs, then there will be a very small market left over.

The point i was trying to make is that energy distribution would become very cheap and wouldnt be the multi billion dollar empire it is today. And when you think how much money the tax man takes from the fossile fules industry.....you can imagine how miffed thier gonna be when the oil companies dont make money anymore.

reply to post by James1982


If any members like coolhanddan want to attempt their own test, I say go for it.

The circuit looks simple enough, and a test could be conducted fairly cheaply and with minimal equipment. So why not try?

None of the arguments you've provided, like "but, but, he's not creating ENERGY, he's just creating POWER!" seem compelling enough to prevent us from trying this. In all honesty, it seems like you just babbled on for five posts to try to dissuade coolhanddan from trying

reply to post by cupocoffee



Cupocoffee,

I am not looking to prove over unity, I have a day job, it seems others are though and thought I would add.

What I posted about Steven E. Jones is over my head and have no idea what he is talking about, seems like James1984 does though so I would point your questions towards him. It is almost as if he has experience with this subject unlike myself and you I would suspect.

I am not saying anything either by the way, all I did was post the easiest looking thing to replicate with free instructions. Running a house on it is a stretch since we are dealing with a simple circuit and 2 AA batteries.

The claims are that milliamps are recovered, even taking the guy at face value (which I can not, and you should not as well if you read the wiki link about him) , we are talking 1/10 of a AA battery. Nothing that john_bmth would want but submitted for your approval.


I would like to thank James1984 for being an adult and explaining simply in layman's terms why Steven E. Jones is not being honest so I can then check and make my own judgement. Star for you sir.

James,

can you explain this quote

On May 26, 2011, Dr. Steven E. Jones demonstrated a simple solid state circuit he has been working on that produces more than eight times more energy out than is electrically put in, implying that energy is being harvested freely from the environment somehow. He shows the results he has gotten both from his oscilloscope as well as a high-end Techtronics oscilloscope he used at Brigham Young University where he served as a Professor.

if he uses the word energy and not the word power, would this change your line of thinking below?

Originally posted by James1982
Power (measured in watts) is energy over time. A simple way to think about this is by comparing a high power laser to a standard household light bulb.

A light bulb can put out the same amount of ENERGY as the laser can, but it takes longer to do it, so it has less POWER. The laser on the other hand, puts out the exact same amount of ENERGY, but in a much shorter time, so it has more POWER.

So, when this man says that he has a circuit that puts out more POWER than it consumes, that means absolutely nothing. If he had a circuit that puts out more ENERGY than it consumes, then YES he actually has an over unity device. But he isn't, so he doesn't. Do you understand now?

Originally posted by coolhanddan

I am not saying anything either by the way, all I did was post the easiest looking thing to replicate with free instructions. Running a house on it is a stretch since we are dealing with a simple circuit and 2 AA batteries.

Well you did well. You presented a simple and cheap test for over-unity, complete with Youtube video and Jones' bio. Your post was compelling

The claims are that milliamps are recovered, even taking the guy at face value (which I can not, and you should not as well if you read the wiki link about him) , we are talking 1/10 of a AA battery. Nothing that john_bmth would want but submitted for your approval.

Even if it's only taking in 10 milliWatts and producing 80, it's the principle of the thing that's significant. That's a COP of 8.0, that's over-unity.

And with a simple little solid-state circuit too, no big complicated motors and batteries to worry about...

Not enough power to run a car or a house, but it would be proof of principle anyway. Even if you just prove the principle, that would go a long way to show the naysayers that it's real.

c

PS "potential", "energy", "power", Joules, Amps, Watts etc are all related to each other by very simple math.

What's significant here is a Physics professor demonstrating Output 8 / Input 1 with high-end oscilloscopes and measuring equipment.

I know you praised our friend James and gave him stars, but it still appears as if his intent was to dissuade you from trying the experiment. To mislead you into believing that there's nothing to see here, when there actually is.

c

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Pimander

 

The plans are the work of disinfo agents? That means the following people are disinfo agents:

John Bedini
Tom Bearden
Nikola Tesla
Dr. T. Henry Moray
Gabriel Kron
Edwin Gray
Frank Golden
Howard Johnson
Floyd Sweet
Dr. Deborah Chung
Dr. Randell Mills

If you're sure the plans on the net are really their originals then perhaps I was hasty there.

reply to post by cupocoffee


If you want to make it be my guest, but my point what the man is claiming the machine does isn't even anything important. You can build it, get the exact same results as he does (increase wattage) and it won't mean anything. Because stepping up the wattage of a circuit isn't creating energy, period. If you know anyone in real life that is knowledgeable about this sort of thing, go ask them the simple question "is increasing wattage of a circuit creating energy?" They will say no, because it isn't.

If you think I am just making stuff up, do your own research. Look at the difference between power and energy. Like I said, this is not semantics, the difference is real and present.

Wattage is not energy, it is power. Another simple way to understand this, is comparing a Capacitor to a battery. Say you have a battery that contains 1 joule of energy in it. Then say you have a capacitor with 1 joule of energy in it. The amount of actual energy present is exactly the same, they are both 1 joule, right? A capacitor can dump it's energy at a much faster rate than a battery can, so it's energy is being used much faster (less time) so it has more power.

If you dump a battery containing 1j of energy, and a capacitor containing 1j of energy, the capacitor will output more power. Did you just crease a free energy device because you increased the power output? No, because you only increased the power, not the energy of the system.

I am honestly not trying to sound rude or condescending, but if you don't understand the difference here, it shows you don't have an understanding of how this stuff works. I encourage you to do your own research into how it does work, so you will be able to independently evaluate statements made by the free energy proponents. Until then, you cannot accurately understand what is actually being said.

But one basic principal you have to understand, is that wattage is not an overall unit of measure of electrical energy. A joule, or watt-hours is. watt-ours being over time, joules are a basic measurement of total energy. This is a fact, this information can be found anywhere. Comparing simple wattage is not going to tell you if any energy is being produced, as anyone can look up a simple wattage-increasing circuit and build it in a manner of minutes.

So build it, come back and tell us how it's putting out more wattage, but that doesn't mean anything, you would have just made a simple power supply.

reply to post by cupocoffee


I'm not trying to stop anyone from doing anything, if you think there is something important in his circuit than build it.

All of my long winded posts are trying to illustrate one fact, that increasing wattage is NOT increasing energy. If you think I am wrong in that statement, than please show me how.

I know people like something else to go by, than just hearing me blab on about it.

A parallel resonant circuit provides current magnification.

That is from the Wiki article about LC circuits (AKA tank circuits, like the man is using in his video. Article HERE

As you should know, wattage is voltage x current. If you use an LC circuit, you will increase current, and therefore wattage. That's all this man is doing in his video.

His circuit is very easy to make, and the components are cheap. So build it, and then connect the output back to the input side. If he is actually somehow creating energy in this system, he shouldn't, and you shouldn't need batteries, it should be able to run the LED without anything other than the circuit alone. Let me know how that turns out.

reply to post by coolhanddan


I cannot explain that quote as I don't know A. how the measurements were made, or B. What exactly he was doing to achieve these results.

My initial guess is that whoever wrote that quote doesn't understand the difference between energy and power, and just uses the words in place of one another. I could very well be wrong, on that, I'd have to have more information before making a call on it.

The only thing I really take issue with in the video is the manner in which he is measuring his device, and that he didn't delete the batteries from the circuit. Since, if he was harvesting energy somehow, and at 8x the input as he claims, the output alone would be more than enough to start the chain all over again, without the batteries there.

But no way am I trying to stop people from building it, I would encourage them to do so. You wouldn't even need to measure the circuit, all you would have to do is remove the batteries from the equation, and if the LED still works I'll eat my hat.

Originally posted by James1982
reply to post by cupocoffee

 

If you want to make it be my guest, but my point what the man is claiming the machine does isn't even anything important. You can build it, get the exact same results as he does (increase wattage) and it won't mean anything. Because stepping up the wattage of a circuit isn't creating energy, period. If you know anyone in real life that is knowledgeable about this sort of thing, go ask them the simple question "is increasing wattage of a circuit creating energy?" They will say no, because it isn't.

If you think I am just making stuff up, do your own research. Look at the difference between power and energy. Like I said, this is not semantics, the difference is real and present.

Wattage is not energy, it is power. Another simple way to understand this, is comparing a Capacitor to a battery. Say you have a battery that contains 1 joule of energy in it. Then say you have a capacitor with 1 joule of energy in it. The amount of actual energy present is exactly the same, they are both 1 joule, right? A capacitor can dump it's energy at a much faster rate than a battery can, so it's energy is being used much faster (less time) so it has more power.

Look, I have done the research. Ask any engineer about over-unity, first thing they'll say is "really? Show me the scope shots on the Input and Output".

This is exactly the sort of evidence that any engineer or anyone in academia would want - Power-In and Power-Out (Watts In / Watts Out), both measured with oscilloscopes. Prof. Jones is doing the experiment correctly, and measuring input/output correctly.

And this big distinction you're trying to make between Power and Energy, is really not that big of a deal. Wattage is just an expression of energy with the Time factored out.

So if I have something that inputs 10mW, and outputs 80mW, and I run it for 5 seconds, then that's 50mJ input, and 400mJ output. If I run it for 10 seconds, then that's 100mJ input and 800mJ output. Whoopee!

The point is, this is the correct way to set up a proof-of-principle experiment. This is how any engineer would want you to prove the circuit to them - Watts Out / Watts In. Both measured with a scope.

Originally posted by James1982

His circuit is very easy to make, and the components are cheap. So build it, and then connect the output back to the input side. If he is actually somehow creating energy in this system, he shouldn't, and you shouldn't need batteries, it should be able to run the LED without anything other than the circuit alone. Let me know how that turns out.

Oh sure, just leave it with me - that random internet blogger guy who is NOT an engineer.

Wouldn't it be better, for credibility purposes, if we had an actual engineer do it? Or even better, a little panel of like three or four engineers?

I mean, if you're going to do something, might as well do it right, right?

Also, question for you. If I increase the wattage in a circuit from 10mW to 80mW, but then I go back and find that there's still only 10mW being drawn from the battery, wouldn't that mean that the energy's coming into the system from some other source?

c

I still believe in magnetic devices and Ive spent years making the best damn magnet brakes you ever seen
the key is to force the magnet device to pull ,not push. if its pushing it will discharge the magnet but as long as its pulling it will always charge itself and keep its magnetism.

if you think of a helix spring loaded rotor that lobes like a cam with 2 magnets pulling towards each other then your chances of success are great and you will be on the right track in achieving over unity

reply to post by anumohi

If there is a key to low energy or zero input propulsion the my guess is that magnetism is the key. A magnet continues to exert the same force even after it has caused motion... That is highly significant surely?

In answer to the OP, the reason nobody has built one is because they don't work. Actually one of the moderators on ATS (I forget which one) said he's been working on them, and seems to think it's just a matter of trial and error and experimentation.

From my perspective, I don't need to build one to know what will happen any more than I need to take a stopwatch with me to time how long it takes a rock to hit the ground after I drop it...I already know how long it will take, just as I already know what will happen with practically every over-unity system I've seen where the plans are openly available.

Originally posted by Pimander
reply to post by anumohi

 

If there is a key to low energy or zero input propulsion the my guess is that magnetism is the key. A magnet continues to exert the same force even after it has caused motion... That is highly significant surely?

Not really that significant. Doesn't gravity do the same thing? I can roll cars down hills all day, the supply of gravity never seems to run out.

Trevor Whatford actually built this contraption and he briefly posted on ATS:
www.real-free-energy.co.uk...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6af76ec5be22.jpg[/atsimg]
I tried to explain to him why it won't work, but he didn't understand me or believe me. I have no problem with him proving it to himself, but I surely don't need to build it to prove to myself that it's not a perpetual motion machine. The only experiments I need to run are those where I don't know what the outcome will be. The difference between Trevor and a lot of other people, and me is, I understand the laws of physics well enough to know what the outcome of the experiment will be, prior to making the device.

reply to post by James1982

James I know your intentions are good, but I suspect you're probably thinking of voltage. Step-up transformers can take 10 volts in and make 100 or even 1000 volts out. That's not a good measure.

But watts versus watt hours is a fairly trivial comparison if you just run a device for one hour, and measure the watts during that one hour, then you have the number of watt-hours. It's really not that hard to compare them if you just take the time into account when talking about watts.

I suspect the real problem with the device is that he's using a meter designed to measure a sinusoidal waveform, yet it is very clear that the waveform he is measuring is NOT sinusoidal, so guess what? The meter will NOT give an accurate reading of power like it would on household AC current which is sinusoidal. And there are plenty of other problems too. The part about an LED running for 9 hours on a battery that can power it for 75 hours is certainly valid. Why would anyone be amazed by that?