Connect with us

OVERUNITY??? you do the math

Woo-Woo Discussion in 'Twilight Zone' started by magnetman12003, Jul 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Scroll to continue with content
  1. magnetman12003

    magnetman12003

    14
    0
    Mar 18, 2010
  2. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,497
    2,838
    Jan 21, 2010
    Doesn't matter how close you get to unity, you'll never quite get there and you'll even more never get beyond it.
     
  3. NuLED

    NuLED

    294
    0
    Jan 7, 2012
    Damn. Steve, it's a joke link. They try to get you to watch Rick Astley.

    He got me. Been awhile since the last one.
     
  4. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,497
    2,838
    Jan 21, 2010
    No, that was me. :D Not going to give page rank to that sort of stuff
     
  5. davenn

    davenn Moderator

    13,838
    1,952
    Sep 5, 2009
    nice one Steve

    ohhh am finally out of hospital, was sick of their food LOL

    Dave
     
  6. NuLED

    NuLED

    294
    0
    Jan 7, 2012
    Congrats!

    I was in the hospital a long long time before as well and I hated that I had no privacy. The food was "so so".
     
  7. eKretz

    eKretz

    251
    27
    Apr 8, 2013
    Me too (Back surgery). (Didn't work).
     
  8. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,271
    Nov 28, 2011
    No, you're not. You're very close to wasting more time and effort on a futile endeavour.

    Unless your intention is to convince uneducated folks that you're onto something and that they should invest in your design so they can take a cut of the huge profits you'll be making when you're selling megawatts of electricity to the power companies. In that case, you may be onto something.

    To be charitable, I'll assume that you sincerely believe that your idea will eventually fly. In this case, what you need to understand is that you're looking at the wrong number. You're looking at efficiency, instead of losses.

    If your system is, say, 95% efficient, that means that its losses are 5%. Everything you do to improve the system has the effect of reducing those losses - whether they're due to friction (mechanical resistance that converts mechanical energy into heat), electrical resistance (that converts electrical energy into heat) or any other kind of loss.

    When you look at it this way, it becomes obvious that (a) the closer you get to zero losses, the more effort it takes to reduce the losses by a given number of percentage points, and (b) the concept of negative losses makes no sense. Therefore you should be able to see that "overunity" is a pipe dream.

    Or you could consider the facts that (a) no one has ever achieved "overunity"; some unscrupulous folks have tried to trick people into thinking that they have, but upon proper investigation, their dishonesty has always been exposed; (b) people who promote and support "overunity" attempts are either charlatans or have little scientific training and literacy; (c) the practical implications, if "overunity" was really possible, would mean that it would be deployed immediately on a huge scale and would solve all the world's energy problems. (Conspiracy theories about governments, big oil, big power etc are totally implausible, IMO.)

    Free, unless you count the cost of time wasted and disappointment suffered...

    You're way behind the pack on this one. Many "overunity inventors" already have demo videos showing a fully operational overunity device. (The tricks they use to make them seem to work are not shown, however.)

    If you think I'm just being a smart-arse, and that you'll be laughing when someone proves me wrong, then fine. If "overunity" is ever verifiably shown to be possible, you and everyone else deserves to laugh at me. You can even send me a video of you laughing at me, or laugh at me via Skype, if you want. WHEN it happens ;-)
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2013
  9. BobK

    BobK

    7,682
    1,688
    Jan 5, 2010
    Kris, did you try clicking the links? It is a joke.

    Bob
     
  10. NuLED

    NuLED

    294
    0
    Jan 7, 2012
    You have to give the guy points for picking such an attractive subject line, that everyone is going to come and tell him he's not achieved the perpetual engine. Hahaha. I hope he isn't going to troll us any more though, it will be annoying to say the least.
     
  11. Raven Luni

    Raven Luni

    798
    8
    Oct 15, 2011
    If anyone ever does succeed with one of these devices, it still wont be overunity, it will be energy harvested from one of the countless sources around us and that energy will be added to your transfer process - and for all you know that energy originates from a local source. Lets say radio waves manage to resonate in your circuit and supply enough energy to offset your losses. Those radio waves most likely come from a transmitter powered by a filthy coal burning power station :p
     
  12. NuLED

    NuLED

    294
    0
    Jan 7, 2012
    LOL he got you too. Damn.
     
  13. NuLED

    NuLED

    294
    0
    Jan 7, 2012
    Alright let's turn this into a useful thread then.

    Raven brings up something I always thought about.

    Can we harvest the RF all around us to recharge batteries?

    There is a voltage induced on a wire right? From "radio" ?

    Can we aggregate all these wires together with some kind of diode bridge and then maybe a joule thief?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2013
  14. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,271
    Nov 28, 2011
    I thought that was because Steve changed the link...?
     
    davenn likes this.
  15. magnetman12003

    magnetman12003

    14
    0
    Mar 18, 2010
    I suppose everyone here knows all there is to know about ""RADIANT ENERGY"". If so please ""STAND UP"" and tell the world what what you DID in detail and what your findings were. I will be most interested.as how anyone can pass judgment on something they dont understand or for that fact never worked with ???
     
  16. eKretz

    eKretz

    251
    27
    Apr 8, 2013
    You are right; it would appear that we have several "readers" who are not reading thoroughly and have been fooled twice over.

    Guys...read a little closer...from the start.
     
  17. KrisBlueNZ

    KrisBlueNZ Sadly passed away in 2015

    8,393
    1,271
    Nov 28, 2011
    I feel no obligation to learn "everything there is to know", and no inclination to waste my time trying to achieve the impossible. I'm happy with quoting the axiom that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another. I also will not be responding further to your claims.

    There is no burden of proof on me to demonstrate a fundamental and invariant principle of science. The burden of proof is, as usual, on the person making the implausible and contra-scientific claim.
     
  18. (*steve*)

    (*steve*) ¡sǝpodᴉʇuɐ ǝɥʇ ɹɐǝɥd Moderator

    25,497
    2,838
    Jan 21, 2010
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-