Overunity.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Does somebody own an overunity device, or has been in somebodies home who powers his own house or car with an overunity device? There are many claims of overunity devices, but does somebody actually use something powered by an overunity device on a regular basis?




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Thats a very good question. People have been on here with designs, plans, etc and even described building working models. Have seen some magnetic devices that were very close to break even which is really quite impressive if it ever got used.

Problem is anything mechanical will never overcome friction. Even though there are magnetic bearings the device becomes very dangerous when the shaft is not contained.

None of the devices except Tesla's 'car box' has ever been show in public as functional.

The ones that claim to pull in free electrons via changing direction of power flow and energy waves are all bunk.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


my Wife,, is an Over-unity device..

she puts out- Much more then i give her..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
If we could harness the power of the hot air that comes from some of the threads on this site we'd have infinite energy
but to stay on topic.. I've never personally seen or heard of anyone actually using such a device.. to my knowledge, nothing like that publically exists.. if the tech does exist then someone is sitting on it..



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Does somebody own an overunity device, or has been in somebodies home who powers his own house or car with an overunity device? There are many claims of overunity devices, but does somebody actually use something powered by an overunity device on a regular basis?


If they did they wouldn't come here and admit it.. In fact I think the people that do use them are very very secretive about them. Anyone who really knows about these devices knows tptb will do whatever it takes to keep this out of the public's hands.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Nobody has them. They do not exist.

People come on here all the time with their claims, but if they had something like that, they wouldn't need to spend time convincing gullible ATSers about it. There would be far better avenues for them to take.

And if there were some big conspiracy to suppress the devices, a simple spread of info on the net would have thousands of people reproducing the thing in a matter of weeks.

It's snake oil, through and through.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





Nobody has them. They do not exist.


Hmm,


Finsrud's Perpetuum Mobile

This has run for 14 days continuous, Overcoming both friction from the air and friction from the track it rolls along.

Is that over-unity ?



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 



This has run for 14 days continuous, Overcoming both friction from the air and friction from the track it rolls along.


Not unless 14 days =


I'm not to good at math but I'll try it. 14 (days) x 1 day each of operation = 14.

Nope... no ∞



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I think the maker states somewhere that this mobile could run until it shook itself to destruction (or words to that effect)

Or, how about these...Atmos Clocks




It gets the energy it needs to run from temperature and atmospheric pressure changes in the environment, and can run for years without human intervention.


Of course people will keep moving the goal posts as to what constitutes over-unity



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 
It's not about "moving the goal posts" as to what is overunity.

The atmos clock:


There is an energy source, ethyl chloride gas, stored in the shape of a very powerful hollow spring, set in a large drum at the back of the clock. Just one degree of temperature change has the effect of keeping the clock running for two days. A plate covering this spring acts on another, much weaker spring, which in turn is connected to a chain attached to the mainspring. In this way the clock is kept wound. So whether the temperature rises or falls, the difference will always wind the clock.
12

There is a chemical inside the clock, and there is also an outside energy source: heat.

If it floated around in the vacuum of space, with no external change in temperature, it would not function.

Overunity suggest putting in less than you are getting or something that can run forever:

Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.
1


Overunity is somewhat of an internet meme now. To even use the word implies absolute crackpotism. Just like perpetual motion machines were a meme of the olden days.


An actual "overunity device" would take energy and somehow make more energy from it. It will never happen. There will always be an explanation as to where the energy is coming from and also limitations from the energy source.

edit on 18-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


In that case, We have to find out how matter came from nothing at the beginning of everything.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
reply to post by boncho
 


In that case, We have to find out how matter came from nothing at the beginning of everything.



Touché, and there is nothing wrong with that kind of thinking either. There are many theories and ideas that would like to explain it, but we aren't ready for that kind of thing yet.

However, there are some great new discoveries going on as we speak about our universe.

The most important thing, is that since matter and energy has been here, it has followed strict rules. We observe those rules and science formulates around the results of experimentation and observation.

"Overunity" was a failed hypothesis that started when there was less understanding about the scientific world than today. If there were to be some magically energy device out there, a new explanation would come along with it, and science to back it would follow. (or possibly preempt it) In other words, it wouldn't be called an "overunity" device.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's forget all the real questions for a second...

So now we are left with the internet meme, youtube videos and a bunch of spinning magnets and black boxes, some snake oil salesmen that round up investor capital.....

That is what "overunity" is.
edit on 18-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Here are a couple more "perceived" overunity devices:

Even though they fully respect the laws of thermodynamics, there are a few conceptual or real devices that appear to be in "perpetual motion." Closer analysis reveals that they actually "consume" some sort of natural resource or latent energy, such as the phase changes of water or other fluids or small natural temperature gradients. In general, extracting large amounts of work using these devices is difficult to impossible.


Resource consuming
Some examples of such devices include:

¬The drinking bird toy functions using small ambient temperature gradients and evaporation.

¬A capillarity based water pump functions using small ambient temperature gradients and vapour pressure differences.

¬A Crookes radiometer consists of a partial vacuum glass container with a lightweight propeller moved by (light-induced) temperature gradients.

¬Any device picking up minimal amounts of energy from the natural electromagnetic radiation around it, such as a solar powered motor.

¬The Atmos clock uses changes in the vapor pressure of ethyl chloride with temperature to wind the clock spring.

¬A device powered by radioactive decay from an isotope with a relatively long half-life; such a device could plausibly operate for hundreds or thousands of years.


What I do find humorous of course, is that while people claim suppression from "big oil" and "TPTB", perpetual motion and overunity were studied for centuries.

For hundreds of years people tried to build things that would continue work forever but could not do it. The leading scientific minds were all about overunity. When there was better understanding of the world around us this idealistic idea dropped away because of the good body of evidence that shows it's not possible.

So... In the end, we have the fringe believers that take a hundreds year old idea and think they can make it work. But as I said earlier, if there were something that appeared to have overunity, it would [in this day and age] also come with an explanation. Science has progressed since the times of Di Vinci.




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
What I do find humorous of course, is that while people claim suppression from "big oil" and "TPTB", perpetual motion and overunity were studied for centuries.


Is this humorous as well?

www.fas.org...

Sorry but it's not a "claim."

There's been hundreds of successful overunity devices developed, but we have a suppression tactic within the patent office that feels the need to crush any such devices so that the tptb can maintain their lofty quality of life and control.

Also people need to identify the difference between overunity and perpetual motion.. A solar panel is overunity, but is not perpetual as it's material will eventually break down over time.


Originally posted by boncho
An actual "overunity device" would take energy and somehow make more energy from it. It will never happen. There will always be an explanation as to where the energy is coming from and also limitations from the energy source.


Most inventors state that the excess energy comes from and is pulled from the environment, and is not created from nothing.. There's nothing in the rule books that says this isn't possible, and in fact has already been done countless times if people were to actually do the research. Until the people wake up and realize that you have rouge group which has a strangle hold over the planet, we will never see this technology used to benefit the public. It's easy to bury your head in the sand and say it ain't so, it's harder to accept it and try and do something about it.

Why aren't we utilizing hydrogen? Because the oil cartel doesn't own the ocean.
Why aren't we utilizing solar? Because the oil cartel doesn't own the sun.




edit on 18-5-2011 by Freezer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 


You would almost have an argument if you didn't bring up blatant fraud right after. Yes, there are things that are kept secret and military is ahead of the general public by a few years. That doesn't equate to what you are trying to imply though.

Stan Meyer was a fraudster, charlatan, con artist, etc.



Also people need to identify the difference between overunity and perpetual motion.. A solar panel is overunity, but is not perpetual as it's material will eventually break down over time.


A solar panel is not "overunity". If you want to call something by the defined name than please understand what the name means first.


Overunity implies you are getting more than you are putting in. Solar panels are collecting energy from the Sun. An external energy source. They do not collect and convert at 100% efficiency.



Until the people wake up and realize that you have rouge group which has a strangle hold over the planet, we will never see this technology used to benefit the public.


Rouge

Are you saying it's the Russians or the Chinese. (Red and Rouge are almost the same color)











edit on 18-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Stan Meyer was a fraudster, charlatan, con artist, etc.


Care to provide proof to back that statement up?

I guess these are fraudulent as well?

U.S. Patent 5,149,407
U.S. Patent 4,936,961
U.S. Patent 4,826,581
U.S. Patent 4,798,661
U.S. Patent 4,613,779
U.S. Patent 4,613,304
U.S. Patent 4,465,455
U.S. Patent 4,421,474
U.S. Patent 5,149,407
U.S. Patent 4,936,961
U.S. Patent 4,826,581
U.S. Patent 4,798,661
U.S. Patent 4,613,779
U.S. Patent 4,613,304
U.S. Patent 4,465,455
U.S. Patent 4,421,474
U.S. Patent 4,389,981


Originally posted by boncho
A solar panel is not "overunity". If you want to call something by the defined name than please understand what the name means first.

Overunity implies you are getting more than you are putting in. Solar panels are collecting energy from the Sun. An external energy source. They do not collect and convert at 100% efficiency.


How much electricity do you put into a solar panel? That's right zero. Yet it outputs electricity all day. More in than out, period.

We can have a generator which is 1% efficient and still produce overunity.


Originally posted by boncho
Rouge


Yea, I too would concentrate on the grammatical errors if didn't have anything to retort with. (Rogue) Happy?

No comment about the invention secrecy act of 1951?
edit on 18-5-2011 by Freezer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 

I spent over an hour doing a comprehensive debunking on "HHO" and Meyer. The thread was deleted though, (because it was someone trying to market their HHO crap) So Ill make this quick.


Care to provide proof to back that statement up?



Nevertheless, Meyer attracted believers, investors and, eventually, legal trouble.

"I was a sucker for some of this stuff at the time," William E. Brooks said from his home in Anchorage, Alaska.

Brooks invested more than $300,000 in Meyer's technology. He hoped to find applications for his aviation business.

Today, he and his wife, Lorraine, laugh about the ordeal, made easier because their money was returned in a 1994 settlement in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Two years later, a Fayette County judge found "gross and egregious fraud" in Meyer's contract negotiation with two businessmen. Their money was returned.
1



How much electricity do you put into a solar panel? That's right zero. Yet it outputs electricity all day. More in than out, period.
The sun is the energy source. And it is highly inefficient way of capturing energy. It's not "overunity."



We can have a generator which is 1% efficient and still produce overunity.


It's a crackpot term.


No comment about the invention secrecy act of 1951?


I have already stated either in this thread or others that military is around 20 years ahead of the general public. Because there are secret projects and certain things that are kept from public industry, it does not equal there is a mass suppression of overunity devices.

It is something that has to be looked into on one items single merit, you can't make blanket statements about this stuff. Your arguments are based on things that you don't understand. Simple as that.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
I spent over an hour doing a comprehensive debunking on "HHO" and Meyer. The thread was deleted though, (because it was someone trying to market their HHO crap) So Ill make this quick.


Debunking HHO?
I love to see how you debunk HHO..But I can see how HHO would scare the crap out of the oil companies, so debunking these clean energy sources is given, doesn't mean any of it has merit, but it's given none the less.

Sorry but the little quoted statement means nothing. Not the first time inventors have been in trouble with the law based on false, fabricated charges.

Nothing to say about the patents? I guess he invested all that time and money for those patents just to scam people right?


Originally posted by boncho
I have already stated either in this thread or others that military is around 20 years ahead of the general public. Because there are secret projects and certain things that are kept from public industry, it does not equal there is a mass suppression of overunity devices.


Nice run around, but that has nothing to do with the invention secrecy act of 1951, does it.. Fact is they can take any invention they please and there is nothing anyone can do about it. If that's not suppression then I don't know what is..


Originally posted by boncho
It's a crackpot term.

Yea and Tesla was a supposed crackpot as well, yet here we are typing on computers powered by ac.

Anyways this is pointless to argue. The real progress will be made by experimenters, and not armchair critics. Just know HHO is on it's way in, and oil is on it's way out..
edit on 18-5-2011 by Freezer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 



Yea and Tesla was a supposed crackpot as well, yet here we are typing on computers powered by ac.

Anyways this is pointless to argue. The real progress will be made by experimenters, and not armchair critics. Just know HHO is on it's way in, and oil is on it's way out..


Statements like this are what I expect.

Good thing we had Faraday to start everything off and Hipplyte Pixii to play around and discover alternating current.

You can see the alternating current generator that Pixii made below. That was of course, before Tesla was born.
1



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Freezer
 



Debunking HHO? I love to see how you debunk HHO..


"HHO" debunks itself fortunately. You can mosey on over to the Stanley Meyer forums at waterfuelcell.org, (they own the copyrights to Meyer videos apparently)

You will find some dedicated tinkerers chasing the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I like the PDF that is stickied.

Here is the link.


The electrolyzer shown in this report has about 80-90% total efficiency when all things are considered (ambient temperature, ambient pressure, accurate measurement of gas volume and current) when powered by straight DC.


80-90% efficiency is nothing new, but it is a good rate for electrolysis. There are many systems that have worse efficiency.


Many people build simple single-cell car hydro-booster type electrolyzers and control the amperage by using weak electrolyte. The cell voltage is often around 13V, and they put just enough electrolyte to pass 5A or so. 5A creates only 3.5 LPH of gas, so the efficiency is very bad at 18.5 Watts per LPH.


Here is the kicker:


One liter of gasoline contains approximately 30MJ of energy, while oxyhydrogen gas would contain approximately 7-8kJ per liter. This means that you would need approximately 4000 liters oxyhydrogen for each liter of gasoline your engine currently uses, assuming the engine efficiencies are approximately the same on oxyhydrogen than on gasoline.




Thus if your car uses 6 liters of gasoline per hour while driving down the highway, prepare for 24000 LPH oxyhydrogen consumption. Assuming a super-efficient series cell electrolyzer (2.5 W per LPH) you would need 60kW of electrical energy to run the electrolyzer. This corresponds to about 80hp, which is significantly more than the amount of engine power used at highway speeds (~20hp). Figuring in the alternator efficiency (~50%) you would actually need 160hp on the engine shaft to produce 24000LPH of oxyhydrogen gas


In other words, it doesn't work.

He goes on to say that a scooter with an ideal system would run for 18 seconds before going kaput.





...but don't forget to stop in and buy some of the Stan Meyer DVDs and other material they offer for cash.




edit on 18-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-5-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join